Not only do women want taller men; they seem to favour a bigger height difference than men. This in turn may have shaped our culture, and the norms that reinforce the expectation that a man should be taller than his female partner.
Private security costs a fortune, and with the world becoming an increasingly unequal place a certain instability increases. It could be dangerous! Very smartly, Oxfam International is raising such questions at the World Economic Forum at Davos, where the global elite gather to talk of big ideas and big money.
Visceral inequality from foodbanks to empty luxury flats is still seen as somehow being in the eye of the beholder by the right — a narrative in which poverty is seen as an innate moral failure of the poor themselves has taken hold.
This in turn sustains the idea that rich people deserve their incredible riches. Most wealth, though, is not earned: Most of us — I count myself — are economically inept.
The economic climate is represented as a natural force, like uncontrollable weather. But these things are man-made and not inevitable at all. In fact, there are deliberate and systemic reasons as to why this is happening. The rich, via lobbyists and Byzantine tax arrangements, actively work to stop redistribution.
Many mainstream economists do not question the degree of this engineering, even when it is highly dubious.
This level of acceptance among economists of inequality as merely an unfortunate byproduct of growth, alongside their failure to predict the crash, has worryingly not affected their cult status among blinkered admirers. That argument may now be collapsing.
The myth is that everyone is a cross between Steve Jobs and Bono; creative, entrepreneurial, unique. The reality is cloned inherited wealth and insane performance-related pay, eg the bankers who continue to reward themselves more than a million a year after overseeing the collapse of the industry.
There are always those who will side with the powerful against the powerless, and economists specialise in this. In fact, international finance is peopled by interchangeable guys who are essentially just paying themselves double what they were 10 years ago.
They may need to think of themselves as special. All it means is a stage of capitalism in which the financial markets were deregulated, public services privatised, welfare systems run down, laws to protect working people dismantled, and unions cast as the enemy.
The Occupy movement has dissipated, but we are seeing in Europe, primarily in Greece and Spain, a refusal to accept the austerity narrative that we appear to have wolfed down here in the UK.
The neoliberal project may fail not because of huge protest, but because reduced income means reduced demand. Never mind the angry proletariat, a disappointed middle-class is something all politicians fear. To stem inequality, it is imperative to stop seeing it as inevitable.The Great Divide Inequality Is Not Inevitable By JOSEPH E.
STIGLITZ June 27, pm The Great Divide is a series about inequality. AN insidious trend has developed over this . Therefore, according to the functionalist perspective, social inequality is inevitable and functional for society. Another sociological perspective is that of conflict theory.
The ideas for this theory originate in the work of German-born Karl Marx, who saw society as marked by class conflict. Inequality only in the eye of the beholder. That is a construct that we place by means of judgement.
If there is no judgement, then it is what it is and nothing more.
|Reportar un comentario||Next Inequality is inevitable.|
|How Capitalism Actually Generates More Inequality - Evonomics||If an economy is to function well, people need incentives to work hard and innovate. The pertinent question is not whether income and wealth inequality is good or bad.|
Some inequality of income and wealth is inevitable, if not necessary. If an economy is to function well, people need incentives to work hard and innovate.
The pertinent question is not whether income and wealth inequality is good or bad. John Locke: Inequality is inevitable and necessary. PHIL John Locke (). Question. John Locke believes that the death penalty is a good way to prevent repetition of wrongdoings.
Good question here from the forum today: “Is wealth and income inequality inevitable in a capitalist system?” I discuss this a bit in my new book, which, in my opinion, is a great primer for Thomas Piketty’s book on inequality. If you want to understand Piketty my book lays the foundation for the entire discussion by helping you understand the macro framework in which he makes his argument.