What You Don’t Know about Inequality
by criticalenviro
Inequality in American society is apparently not well understood by the general public. This motion infographic renders:
1) What people think a fair income distribution looks like
2) What people think income distribution really is
3) Actual income distribution in America
Wealth ultimately arises from natural resource extraction, primarily fossil fuels. So, this film offers a launching point to think about how the earth’s resources should be shared among its inhabitants. Also, how does income inequality affect rates and forms of consumption, investment, growth and other stresses on the non-human world?
See more about energy inequality in this environmental book:
Advertisements
“Wealth ultimately arises from natural resource extraction, primarily fossil fuels”
Karl Marx was right about many things, but the last few decades have shown him to be grossly wrong on this claim. The value of an integrated circuit is unrelated to the cost of resources associated with its production; and the wealth derived from its sale does not arise from resource extraction. Much of modern “equality” rhetoric relies on a demonstrably incorrect constant-sum economy model based on the notion derived from equating resources to wealth.
If all wealth were derived from resources, there might be justification for measuring a society’s progress or level of justice by the rich-poor income inequality as opposed to measuring it based on the state of the poor today versus in the past. Is a Rawlsian theory of justice simply off the table in argument? I see no reason it should be – and no reason to equate justice with wealth equality.
Thanks Bill, I am very curious to hear more about your take on this. Thank you also for taking the time to comment. I don’t think you would say that the wealth derived from the sale of an integrated circuit would be possible without material extraction, or would you? Perhaps Rawls Theory of Justice may run into constraints on a finite planet unless we can envision wealth that is not related directly to material extraction?
I would say that the value of resources (including embedded ones, e.g., mining, processing, transport) are a very minor fraction of the value of an integrated circuit and many other high tech items including software.
A good thought experiment here might be to imagine for moment that dispatchable fusion power generation becomes available tomorrow. This would not violate any laws of physics and can reasonably be judged technically feasible in the next century. Assume that a climate catastrophe has not occurred by that time. Given those hypotheticals, can we then say that wealth will not be directly tied to resources, and that an economy can exist that is not a fixed-sum game (or that economic competition is not a zero-sum game)? It seems to me we can.
My main concern regarding the speaker’s position though was not the tie between wealth and resources. It was his implicit claim that income inequality necessarily means a worsening state of the poor or bottom xx%. Past economists, philosophers and politicians at least argued over the validity of Adam Smith’s all-boats-rise idea. In Rawls’ theory of justice, I recall he accepted income inequality provided that the inequality benefitted the least well-off. The existence of high-value products, not intimately tied to resources, that rapidly decrease in price over time (like integrated circuits) would seem to be plausible evidence that Bill Gates’ wealth has benefitted the bottom xx% more than it has injured them. There may be arguments against this; but I don’t think it can be dismissed without debate or ignored.
Simply ignoring the distinction between income inequality and injury to the poor seems either sloppy thinking or a dishonest political tactic. It seems increasingly common though.
I’ll get on that fusion thing right away.