I enjoyed reading this post, as I’m always perplexed by the extent of inequality in life. Having had the privilege of living as the working poor, and of extreme decadence, I’m in a position to state quite simply:

Nominal and material inequality are one and the same.

Only an academic could think otherwise. As one poster has suggested, the freedom to chose one shit job over another, cannot be compared with deciding which resort you want to spend your summer at.

They are not equal

I enjoyed reading this post, as I’m always perplexed by the extent of inequality in life. Having had the privilege of living as the working poor, and of extreme decadence, I’m in a position to state quite simply:

Nominal and material inequality are one and the same.

Only an academic could think otherwise. As one poster has suggested, the freedom to chose one shit job over another, cannot be compared with deciding which resort you want to spend your summer at.

They are not equal

statements like this undermine the entire comment base to this posting.

statements like this undermine the entire comment base to this posting.

The middle class developed after World War II because of the housing and G.I. support from the government. However back then a moderate lifestyle could be supported by a single working parent. Nowadays except for the wealthy, most families need to have both adults working full time to support an acceptable lifestyle. Given that a worker working full time on minimum wage earns below the given poverty line is truly frightening. Not to mention that when I am fired from a job for poor performance, my severance package rarely approaches the 200 million height.

Education is the solution, however to create an educational system that is based on a market already skewed towards the elitist society would only further inequality. We trap the poor and then blame them when they do not succeed. So what are they to do? And besides, does anyone personally need a net worth of over a couple million dollars? Why do economists believe that economic laws are equivalent to physical laws, unchangeable and necessary. The market is not God, despite how much you wish it to be.

The middle class developed after World War II because of the housing and G.I. support from the government. However back then a moderate lifestyle could be supported by a single working parent. Nowadays except for the wealthy, most families need to have both adults working full time to support an acceptable lifestyle. Given that a worker working full time on minimum wage earns below the given poverty line is truly frightening. Not to mention that when I am fired from a job for poor performance, my severance package rarely approaches the 200 million height.

Education is the solution, however to create an educational system that is based on a market already skewed towards the elitist society would only further inequality. We trap the poor and then blame them when they do not succeed. So what are they to do? And besides, does anyone personally need a net worth of over a couple million dollars? Why do economists believe that economic laws are equivalent to physical laws, unchangeable and necessary. The market is not God, despite how much you wish it to be.

In particular I was struck by your distinction between nominal and material welfare, and your argument that the material conditions of the less well off are not so different from those at the top in qualitative terms. I think that is a point that is well worth pondering, and with a good deal of truth to it which I had not adequately considered in the past.

That said, I would like to make a couple of quibbles. First a minor one: it is true that total compensation, including fringe benefits, is a better guide than wages when looking at what workers earn. As an employer myself however I would like to point out that some of those fringe benefits do not in fact benefit the typical worker to the degree you might think. Take worker’s compensation: are you aware of the massive amount of fraud that goes on in that area? In my own company — a landscaping firm — there have been only a few piddling claims in twenty years if you don’t count the fraudulent ones. But they were massive, and had the effect of depriving honest workers of a big peice of their earnings (the tax rate in Tennessee for workers comp is close to 10%). Unfortunately there is no effective way to police this problem, at least so far.

Employee medical insurance is another problematic area: the huge escalation in the costs of medical care do not reflect real improvement in care and are largely beyong the power of employees to do anything about (or employers either, for that matter). There is enormous waste in the medical system which impacts workers with lower nominal wages disproportionately. You might acknowledge this reality which only qualifies but hardly refutes your main point.

Another area of consideration: material conditions are a matter not only of what we consume but also what we have to do in order to get the things we consume. Many low-skilled married couples find themselves forced to work full-time (both of them) outside the home, even when their children are only a few weeks old. This is a real issue of quality that does not impact many wealthier families. I think you should acknowledge that.

I believe you do acknowledge the problem of poor public schools: in low-income areas, and often throughout entire metropolitan areas (such as the one I live in, Chattanooga, TN)the conditions are abominable. In these communities private schools are the only quality alternative, and only affluent families can afford them.

Neighborhood safety is another fundamental problem that impacts low and high income families very differently. If you live in a leafy suburban neighborhood such as I live in you do not even have to lock your doors. Shoot, we don’t even have locks. Contrast that to people who have to worry and care about robbery, assault, etc.

Don’t get me wrong. I think you make a powerful argument. It might be even more powerful if you would candidly admit some of its shortcomings. This is not a perfect world even if it is infinitely better than any other world that has ever existed for most people.

In fact I

In particular I was struck by your distinction between nominal and material welfare, and your argument that the material conditions of the less well off are not so different from those at the top in qualitative terms. I think that is a point that is well worth pondering, and with a good deal of truth to it which I had not adequately considered in the past.

That said, I would like to make a couple of quibbles. First a minor one: it is true that total compensation, including fringe benefits, is a better guide than wages when looking at what workers earn. As an employer myself however I would like to point out that some of those fringe benefits do not in fact benefit the typical worker to the degree you might think. Take worker’s compensation: are you aware of the massive amount of fraud that goes on in that area? In my own company — a landscaping firm — there have been only a few piddling claims in twenty years if you don’t count the fraudulent ones. But they were massive, and had the effect of depriving honest workers of a big peice of their earnings (the tax rate in Tennessee for workers comp is close to 10%). Unfortunately there is no effective way to police this problem, at least so far.

Employee medical insurance is another problematic area: the huge escalation in the costs of medical care do not reflect real improvement in care and are largely beyong the power of employees to do anything about (or employers either, for that matter). There is enormous waste in the medical system which impacts workers with lower nominal wages disproportionately. You might acknowledge this reality which only qualifies but hardly refutes your main point.

Another area of consideration: material conditions are a matter not only of what we consume but also what we have to do in order to get the things we consume. Many low-skilled married couples find themselves forced to work full-time (both of them) outside the home, even when their children are only a few weeks old. This is a real issue of quality that does not impact many wealthier families. I think you should acknowledge that.

I believe you do acknowledge the problem of poor public schools: in low-income areas, and often throughout entire metropolitan areas (such as the one I live in, Chattanooga, TN)the conditions are abominable. In these communities private schools are the only quality alternative, and only affluent families can afford them.

Neighborhood safety is another fundamental problem that impacts low and high income families very differently. If you live in a leafy suburban neighborhood such as I live in you do not even have to lock your doors. Shoot, we don’t even have locks. Contrast that to people who have to worry and care about robbery, assault, etc.

Don’t get me wrong. I think you make a powerful argument. It might be even more powerful if you would candidly admit some of its shortcomings. This is not a perfect world even if it is infinitely better than any other world that has ever existed for most people.

In fact I

So it’s not so much of an obesity problem as it is a not-occasionally-starving problem.

So it’s not so much of an obesity problem as it is a not-occasionally-starving problem.

But yes, if the least well off have all the basics and can pursue a full life then some of us who cared can go back to sleep.
Forgive me though, if i doubt they have much chance of a really satisfying life !
And I always thought the problem for the working poor, and for very many in better paid work, was the compulsion to work harder and longer and in less pleasant and rewarding occupations than they would chose if free.

To change this I am fairly sure, requires not some attack on wealth creation but an alteration in the fundamental relations of economic power, ( regarding land, labour and capital)

Fortunately I am getting old enough not to really hope for such idealistic outcomes!

regards David L.