This is a nice demonstration that ‘raw’ inequality data is not very useful. “X% have Y% of the wealth!” really doesn’t tell you very much.
I’m actually only concerned about the consequences of inequality (which could be positive or negative), not about inequality itself. What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly don’t want to reduce inequality out of spite.
Statistics that tell me, just as an example, how the wealth of parents corresponds with the success of their children in school are much more interesting and reducing inequality probably wouldn’t even be the best solution for such a problem. It’s not as though all that money in mommy’s and daddy’s bank account makes their kids magically more intelligent. (But it can pay for private schools or for private lessons and so on.)
It’s not as though all that money in mommy’s and daddy’s bank account makes their kids magically more intelligent. (But it can pay for private schools or for private lessons and so on.)
FWIW, numerous studies have found that the vast majority of correlation between parental income and the academic success of children can be explained by a third factor: Parental education. Educated parents both earn more and provide far more educational encouragement and assistance to their children.
Yeah, I knew that and should have written that in my comment. You are right.
I’m from Germany where this kind of inequality is particularly egregious. The explanation is probably that the fate of students is decided early on, in fourth grade. (You continue in one of three different types of schools after fourth grade, depending on your grades. Switching between schools is a hassle and only the highest school has a clear path to all universities.) Looking back at my own experience in elementary school, I would say that it was essential for me that my parents learned with me and helped me with my homework.
I feel that you are omitting genetics as a possible (probable) significant cause of academic success, which because of the corelation with the parents own academic success will be hard to disambiguate as a variable.
According to horizon (a main stream medium-high brow documentary series in the UK), separated twin studies show that as much as 50% of 'measured intelligence' can be attributed to genetics - which was fairly surprising (not the figure itself, because it agrees with my own suspicions) but because it was on a mainstream show. What is more earlier in the show they talked about a scientist in the 30's (nephew of Francis Galton, forget his name) who had faked a bunch of such studies and made up numbers. The figure he invented was 30%.
There has been many studies for a long time (several decades) which show that as far as environment matters, what matters is not so much money, but what is called in sociology "cultural capital" (not sure it is the right expression in English). For example, in France (but I guess in other countries as well), children from teachers succeed much better than children from workers, even though income is not so much different. The ability to speak well, to dress well, manners, etc... matters a lot for getting high social status (through work, etc...), and they are valuable because of the inequality. If everybody has a certain quality, its value is almost zero, it is the same as resources in economy.
As for the origin of measured intelligence, I would be surprised about 50 % of intelligence which could be attributed to genetics if you mean IQ (I don't see how it would be consistent with the Flynn effect, for once). But I would rather avoid a discussion on IQ (I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion, as its correlation with success in modern societies is pretty weak, once above a minimal threshold).
But I would rather avoid a discussion on IQ (I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion, as its correlation with success in modern societies is pretty weak, once above a minimal threshold).
No, it's predictive value for individual success is pretty weak. That's not the same thing. Here is a rather famous graph:
I suppose the counter point is that teachers are 'underpaid' for their intelligence, when compared to workers. There is probably an element of that since teaching is vocational and most people entering the profession do so in the knowledge that they will not earn as much. Hence we should not be surprised that their children do better - for both cultural and genetic reasons (50-50?).
The original point was about academic success, which is surely more corelated with IQ than economic success.
I think discussion about IQ, genetics and co are mostly meaningless for various reasons: the issue is extremely loaded politically, which means it is difficult to discuss about it with people who has a different opinion, and the science around it is inconclusive at best (the nature or even the reality of flynn effect is still debated, for example).
This is not to say it is not interesting, but I would put it in the same camp as discussion around religion: it is possible to discuss about it, but almost impossible to do it in a reasonable manner with random people in the internet. That's why I refuse to discuss it as a matter of principle in most cases with people I don't know personally.
From your recollection of that UK documentary series ... you haven't told what percent of the population has bad genetics.
My wife works in a kindergarten: lots of kids have problems assimilating concepts / participating in games. But for most of those kids, their ability to follow the rules and learn can be attributed to a problem at home: i.e. parents that lost control over them (think Dennis the Menace) or parents that don't provide harmony in their family (fighting a lot, getting separated, etc...).
And really, the difference between kids with parents that work/play with them and that provide a balanced home environment versus those with problems at home is striking.
Even if %50 of intelligence can be attributed to genetics, that doesn't say a lot.
Just want to point out that you are assuming that everyone has access to decent public schools. I'll bet genetics is far less important if that weren't the case.
Not at all. That would be part of the other 50% ... going with that number.
In fact your remark is quite confused. 50% is the variation in a 'typical' population. If everyone had access to public schools genetics would be more important. Since that would eliminate one of the major factors which accounts for the other 50% (again, going with that number).
He said genetics wouldn't be so important if everyone didn't have access to decent schools. In other words, he's saying genetics is more important if the school inequality is equalized. You're actually agreeing with him.
I had to reread both of these comments a couple of times, before it dawned on me why you disagreed - correctly.
Since I am from the UK public school reads 'posh elite school', not 'state school' so it had an opposite sense to my thinking.
As to the alleged assumption, I'm not entirely sure to what degree I am making it. I am assuming of course the same conditions as the experiments I mentioned - which were, I am fairly sure, western society in general in the last few decades. I won't pass judgement as to whether this meets the condition of decent state schools for all.
In all not too sure what the point of the original observation was, it could go in both directions. The figure of 50% only makes sense given some context.
I’m not really surprised that genetics influence intelligence. I always thought that to be a pretty standard view and the 50 percent figure you are citing doesn’t exactly startle me.
I’m not so sure how important those 50 percent are in this context, though. One question that I think is not answered by twin studies is how ‘hereditary’ intelligence is. (I’m certain that there exists a wealth of literature about just that topic, I’m too lazy to look for it right now.) Do two parents of average intelligence only have children with similarly average intelligence or is the range of intelligence of their children much wider? Then there is obviously the question how well wealth corresponds to intelligence in the first place.
What's your point? Because '50% of measured intelligence (whatever that is) can be attributed to genetics' nothing/little/less can/should be done about it? Or because only 50% is determined by genetics, we should do more about inequality in educational systems?
I don't get it.
I would agree and disagree with you. Looking at just wealth inequality is, as you say, asking the wrong question. The real issue is earned wealth versus inherited wealth. Even the founding fathers were particularly wary of the problem of allowing unearned wealth to aggregate over several generations, and how that can eventually allow incompetency to rule over competency.
And, this doesn't apply simply to the issue of taxing direct inheritances, so it's not so easy to solve with taxation alone. Someone could easily not give their children a dime in direct inheritance, and just stick them high up in one of their companies with a nice, cushy multi-million dollar salary.
> What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the
> wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly
> don’t want to reduce inequality out of spite.
You might want reduce it because the lowest x% don't have enough to eat. Share the cake.
The poor don't eat too much compared to the middle class and the wealthy. The poor eat the wrong kinds of foods, because the wrong kinds of food are inexpensive.
If you are fat, you eat too much food. You have more than enough to eat. The situation described by monos, "the lowest x% don't have enough to eat", does not apply. His advice to "share the cake" will only make the real problem (the bottom x% already eats too much cake) worse.
Also, price is not the controlling factor here. 3500 cals of crap might be the same price as 2250 cals of nutritious food, but so what? If you were optimizing for cost, you would eat 2250 cals of crap, not 3500. If you have the money to be fat while eating crap, you also have the money to maintain a healthy weight on nutritious food.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. You've oversimplifying the complex subject of nutrition.
It is now known that it's not as simple as "calories in - calories burned = weight gain or loss". The body burns more calories processing some kinds of foods compared to others. The body is less efficient or less encouraged to convert some kinds of excess calories into fat, depending on the source of the calories. It is becoming more clear that insulin plays an important role in a large percentage of cases of obesity, and it turns out most of the most cost effective foods encourage the body to produce the most insulin (and, almost paradoxically, also encourage hunger).
Your own example demonstrates my previous point. I would need to eat 18 (!) of those salads you suggested, every day, to merely maintain my weight. Or 5 Big Macs. It's obviously an extreme example, but which do you think poor people would choose? Buying cheap food can make the difference between paying the rent and living on the street.
With all due respect, it's ignorant and offensive to blame poor people for all their problems. Having an adequate amount of money makes an astonishing difference in your ability to achieve good nutrition, lower your stress, pursue advanced education, get enough exercise, etc.
I know it's popular to blame all poor obese people for their own predicament, but it's simply ignorant.
I agree with your first paragraph - there are significant corrections to the rule of "calories in - calories out = weight gain". That doesn't mean it's not a good first order approximation (in my experience, within about 15% [1]). It also doesn't mean that fat people aren't eating too much. If you are 40lbs overweight, eat less. If you are not overweight but don't have a 6 pack, that's the time to start worrying about exactly what you are eating.
Also, you are correct - the straw man you are arguing against is wrong. It would be cost inefficient to eat 18 salads and 0 big macs.
Now, lets say you are obese. That means you are eating 6 big macs. If you are constrained by cost, you could reduce consumption to 5 big macs (saving the cost of 1 big mac), and you will eventually be merely overweight rather than obese. Or you could change your consumption from 6 big macs to 4 big macs + 1 big salad, and you will approach a healthy weight (and save money). If you want a visible 6 pack, you might even need to play around with the exact composition of your 2250 calories.
You are also ignoring the fact that it isn't very expensive to cook healthy food at home. Last night I cooked about 6 meals from rice, lentils and frozen vegetables. Total cost: about $5. 6 big macs costs about $18.
Also, as for exercise, the lowest earners have the most free time and they exercise the least (I won't even get into the vast majority of poor who don't work at all). They spend the most time watching television. The highest earners have the least free leisure time and spend the most time on exercise (and the least on TV). I'm not sure why having more leisure time would make it harder to get exercise or cook a healthy meal.
[1] My personal experience: I was obese as a teenager. I got myself down to a reasonably healthy weight simply by reducing intake during a 1 year period when I was living well below the poverty line (this was during college and due to some unusual choices I made). I was hungry as all fuck. My rate of weight loss was within 15% of what calorie counting predicted.
The poor eat the wrong kinds of foods, because the wrong kinds of food are inexpensive.
Convenient dominates inexpensive. Frozen vegetables fried in a wok with butter and assorted spices is easy, fast and cheap, but not as easy as pizza goes in oven.
But what is the point of such a line of discussion? If there are no consequences then of course no one would care. The whole reason such a thing is discussed is because there are indeed very real consequences.
Not really. Here in the UK "the poor" have satellite TV, free healthcare, smoke 40 cigarettes a day, and pay someone else to cook their food.
What does it matter that "the rich" go to the opera and smoke cigars and eat at fancy restaurants instead of the kebab shop? How does any of the latter take anything away from the former?
We were talking in the context of the US where this is absolutely not the case. In the UK the wealth inequality would be less of a big deal than in the US precisely because the UK takes better care of it's poor (with the unfortunate abuse that comes with that).
pg's comments about wealth are correct: me going out and creating something that makes me a billion dollars doesn't take anything away from anyone. But this is provided I'm a one man show and have no team. As soon as it's not "me" but a company, then me having enormous compensation very much does take away from others. The more money I take out of the pot, the less there is for workers, new positions, etc. It wasn't so long ago that top CEO's were making 70k/yr. :)
I’m actually only concerned about the consequences of inequality (which could be positive or negative), not about inequality itself. What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly don’t want to reduce inequality out of spite.
Statistics that tell me, just as an example, how the wealth of parents corresponds with the success of their children in school are much more interesting and reducing inequality probably wouldn’t even be the best solution for such a problem. It’s not as though all that money in mommy’s and daddy’s bank account makes their kids magically more intelligent. (But it can pay for private schools or for private lessons and so on.)