Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Aeson]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. People having iPhones hasn't eliminated envy.

Diminishing marginal utility is another intrinsic problem of inequality.

[Aeson]

Yes, and revolutions normally happen when there are people starving, or some compelling ideological reason. It is no coincidence that the Arab Spring began when food prices were at very high levels.

Inequality often leads to dissatisfaction based on relative standing regardless of where the absolute values are. Whether it would be a driving factor, or simply a contributing one doesn't change that there are intrinsic problems with inequality.

This is sounding very circular, to me.

It was simply noting that the inverse (inequality being reduced leading to more stability) also is observable.

I am speaking of a narrower expanse of possibilities where no poverty is accompanied by opportunity to excel and to raise one's station in life.

The problems with inequality become more clear at the extremes where there are not so many confounding factors to muddy the waters.

Inequality will necessarily mean that some have less opportunity (to do whatever) than others. Currently the single most important factor in how well a person will do in life is where they are born ... which is a ridiculous situation that dramatically reduces the general welfare of humanity.

This is not the ground for revolution or social discord, as those who would be capable of driving a revolution would be busy doing something useful to themselves (and orthers) without breaking things.

This is not necessarily true. You are assuming a system where the traits which would lend themselves to driving a revolution would be more well suited towards operating within the system, and that those individuals would value the return from the system as higher than the return from dissent. Neither are givens.

[Kidlicious]

I think we aren't going to have revolutions anymore. People are just going to buy guns and shoot a bunch of people.

[Fake Boris]

Let's recapitulate again

1) Most social issues are not all that bad since we get iPhones
2) Poverty and inequality are not the same, so let's argue for ages about a semantic distinction

[C0ckney]

I stopped bolding after a bit, it is so obvious what the problems are with societies where success is a dirty word.

the author of that article seems to have taken one statistic and then writing a polemic without bothering to do much analysis of the situation behind it.

Data show that continental Europe has a problem with creating new businesses destined for growth. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, which compiles comparable data across countries, in 2010 “early-stage” entrepreneurs made up just 2.3% of Italy’s adult population, 4.2% of Germany’s, and 5.8% of France’s. European countries are below—in many cases well below—America’s 7.6%, let alone China’s 14% and Brazil’s 17%.

there are two main reasons that brasil's number of entrepreneurs is high.

1) there is almost no regulation of street selling and indeed very small businesses. so people can just set up a table on the street, or get a hotdog cart and start selling stuff. or he can make little 'salgados' (little savoury snacks) or sweets and literally sell them through his window. go to any brasilian city and you will see the streets packed with people selling all manner of things.

2) wages in the formal sector are very low for low skilled jobs (a single person cannot realistically support him/herself on the minimum wage). so for people who need to support themselves or others, working informally is a good option. many of these informal workers will sell things, have food carts, maybe work in the informal transport sector (another lightly regulated area).

now of course all these people are entrepreneurs, but the idea that some guy selling t-shirts or ice creams on the beach is going to give the world the next mircosoft or google is fanciful.

talking about barriers to entrepreneurs.

1) labour costs here are quite high here (by which i mean the cost of hiring, excepting wages). so for every real spent on wages, there is another .7 spent on related costs. now this is lower than somewhere like italy, but it's higher than, for example, switzerland.

2) brasilian bureaucracy is legendary and with good reason. it takes a long time to set up a formal business and there are many hoops to jump through. it's far more straightforward in the UK for example.

3) the tax system is complicated and difficult to navigate, even when you compare it to somewhere like the UK (which is needlessly complicated IMO). there are other issues with taxes and tariffs, try importing stuff into brasil and see what your tax bill is like!

4) corruption is endemic here and it is a huge problem for business (or more accurately consumers, who have to pay the final costs). now your small time street entrepreneur doesn't have to worry too much about this (expect maybe getting his stuff stolen by the municipal guard once in a while), but for a company that wants to operate legally, it's a big problem. there is always someone to pay off, many administrative problems to overcome with 'sweeteners'. if you want to work with the government on any level, you have to pay (or, as i referred to in another post in this thread, have a politician or two in your pocket). i know a few guys who run, or are high up in, large companies and they estimate that about 25-30% of the cost of any contract is taken up by bribes and such like. so more than a 1/4 of the cost is completely unrelated to the cost of providing the cost of product or service.

despite these many problems, it's easy to see why entrepreneurs are upbeat. brasil is a fast growing economy, and there are opportunities to make money. there have been some real brasilian entrepreneurial success stories, in the tech world for example, but their success tends to be confined to brasil, so you don't hear much about them. also people have seen their standard of living increase considerably during the last 15 years or so and this makes people feel that the future is bright for brasil.

[Al B. Sure!]

How do we define poverty? Poverty in 1900 meant a lifestyle entirely different than in 2000 and will mean something entirely different in 2100. Poverty is always relative to what the rest of the people have (be it, the median or the very rich). It is not an objective demarcation.

Inequality can remain high while the poverty level rises so the poor can have better and better lifestyles over time, just not better lifestyles relative to other members of the society.

I would think improvements over time is the goal of any attempt at social betterment, not necessarily leveling people's statuses. Would be silly to level everyone today to 2100's poverty level.

[giblets]

How do we define poverty? Poverty in 1900 meant a lifestyle entirely different than in 2000 and will mean something entirely different in 2100. Poverty is always relative to what the rest of the people have (be it, the median or the very rich). It is not an objective demarcation.

Inequality can remain high while the poverty level rises so the poor can have better and better lifestyles over time, just not better lifestyles relative to other members of the society.

I would think improvements over time is the goal of any attempt at social betterment, not necessarily leveling people's statuses. Would be silly to level everyone today to 2100's poverty level.

The percentage of US families below the poverty threshold, an absolute definition of poverty, has not decreased since the 1970's.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think we aren't going to have revolutions anymore. People are just going to buy guns and shoot a bunch of people.

So all that rubble in Syria, it'a all just a bunch of messed up Cineplex's and High Schools? The Free Syrian Army is just a bunch of Batman wannabes?

We're putting forth UN proposals in support of a bunch of schiztie grad students? Jeez, no wonder the Rooskies won't go along.

[Hauldren Collider]

The percentage of US families below the poverty threshold, an absolute definition of poverty, has not decreased since the 1970's.

That's because they change the poverty line every year to make sure that a certain number always fall below it.

[giblets]

That's because they change the poverty line every year to make sure that a certain number always fall below it.

Suure they do.

[KrazyHorse]

I stopped bolding after a bit, it is so obvious what the problems are with societies where success is a dirty word.

The sad part is that the difference in the level of wealth/income is much smaller than the difference in production due to the inability of innovators to capture more than a small fraction of the wealth they produce (Europe still gets to enjoy the consumer surplus created by all the innovators in places where innovation is still possible). If the us were to follow the euros down their self-destructive path this would no longer be true, and we would all be much poorer. Conversely, if the euros ever decide to get off their asses and start innovating we will all get richer a lot faster.

[Fake Boris]

The sad part is that the difference in the level of wealth/income is much smaller than the difference in production due to the inability of innovators to capture more than a small fraction of the wealth they produce (Europe still gets to enjoy the consumer surplus created by all the innovators in places where innovation is still possible). If the us were to follow the euros down their self-destructive path this would no longer be true, and we would all be much poorer. Conversely, if the euros ever decide to get off their asses and start innovating we will all get richer a lot faster.

How do you measure the production of an individual innovator?

[MrFun]

The iphone is a particularly good example of how little inequality e have nowadays. Everybody has the same phone whether they earn 20k a year or 20MM, and it is something that literally no amount of money could have purchased 10 years ago...

So why are there still homeless people? Why are there still people who go hungry or are starving, even in a "wealthy" country like America?

It's very shallow to think that widespread ownership of non-essential materialistic things like iPhones are an indicator that REAL poverty and the problems that come with poverty, have diminished. Instead of talking about iPhones, let's talk about homelessness, hunger/starvation, inadequate healthcare, and poverty-level minimum wage.

[MrFun]

I thought Western European countries, Australia, and Japan have far lower poverty rate than United States.

So far in this thread, only kentonio answered. But I wanted those who claim that America's poverty level is among the lowest, to address this.

[Jon Miller]

I think that poverty doesn't just mean food/shelter, but also means lacking access to things that allow one to become upper class.

JM