Comments on: Income Inequality in Australia and the US http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/ Obstinately objective Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:38:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anthony Ravlich http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-10442 Anthony Ravlich Sat, 04 Dec 2010 07:26:57 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-10442 Further to my contribution above re US inequality. In an article, I am writing about what happened to New Zealand over the past 20 years – it was based, in my view, on a simple idea that ‘the collective is everything and the individual nothing’. Human rights omissions, see different forms of discrimination above, reduced the individual to nothing – the major objective being to crush individual potential (including the inner being) that is how the collective becomes everything. Have a look at the videos on the internet – Collectivism: sons of darkness and sons of light – which will show those with little human rights knowledge that individuals are not mere products of their environment but much much more – in fact if they were ‘nothing’ there will be no radically new ideas only ideas which prop up the status quo would be permitted. New Zealand fell into this trap of mediocrity - only the truth about the human rights omissions coming out and a freak major earthquake in Christchurch (no one killed) which together with massive rebuilding re ‘leaky homes’ (not surprisingly due to lowering standards of individual excellence) has saved it for the time being i.e. individualism and a expanded ‘bottom-up’ private sector is again wanted. But part of the problem was originally, in my view, also individualism itself. This was seen by Franklin Roosevelt, a great American President in my book. He faced up to the truth of social class and recognized if everyone was going to get a ‘fair go’ (those on the bottom would have paltry opportunities and access to liberal rights – there had to be limits to unequal rights) that a wider ‘duty to the community’ was necessary i.e. his second bill of rights for America (containing economic, social and cultural rights). The latter was necessary to ensure that the policies he implemented – which lifted the lid suppressing creativity allowing America to flourish – would always protect those at the bottom – not just help them but allow them also to help themselves (their right to development – to follow their dreams and use the talents). We are all at different stages of development in life sometimes we need help but usually, if not seriously damaged, prefer the dignity of helping ourselves. What is not needed is discrimination which crushes us into a prolonged dependency. (While a bit outside of my field, I suspect it is this discriminatory collectivism which is also hated by religious terrorists concerned about the inner being and hence their jihad or holy war. Although, in my experience, the truth will set us free but human rights are at least listened to covertly in our very fearful societies). I have had a look and it does not surprise me to find that US federal, state, employment law and human rights acts have omitted non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin which in America’s case would permit discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic status (or according to socio-economic classes which are not officially recognized as existing). And the latter, I strongly suspect in the US as in NZ, it is a bureaucratically driven and supported by government i.e. in my view, the status seekers rather the wealth seekers hold sway . The extreme focus on money suggests to me you may be taking human rights for granted – am I right? By failing to face the truth the discriminatory collectivism slowly takes over the country almost invisibly. In my view, the Christchurch earthquake was one of life’s miracles – better being on the right track than a track which leads to a nation in darkness – even if it does cost a lot of money, needlessly of course because all the rights should had been included in the first place. I recently thought of one of William Shakespeare’s quotes – ‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy’. I hope you have a miracle. PS. I should also have added to the above re where individualism went wrong and led to the discriminatory collectivist takeover (in NZ, hopefully in the past, and strongly suspect the US) is that it failed to exercise a wider duty wrt race and women. Again unequal rights have their limits - you cannot deny people the core minimum obligations of the State wrt civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights and should also include their self-help rights to development, human rights education to ensure they are not kept in a state of dependency - see our website, www.hrc2001.org.nz, Anthony Ravlich, Chairperson, Human Rights Council Inc. (New Zealand) Further to my contribution above re US inequality. In an article, I am writing about what happened to New Zealand over the past 20 years – it was based, in my view, on a simple idea that ‘the collective is everything and the individual nothing’. Human rights omissions, see different forms of discrimination above, reduced the individual to nothing – the major objective being to crush individual potential (including the inner being) that is how the collective becomes everything. Have a look at the videos on the internet – Collectivism: sons of darkness and sons of light – which will show those with little human rights knowledge that individuals are not mere products of their environment but much much more – in fact if they were ‘nothing’ there will be no radically new ideas only ideas which prop up the status quo would be permitted. New Zealand fell into this trap of mediocrity – only the truth about the human rights omissions coming out and a freak major earthquake in Christchurch (no one killed) which together with massive rebuilding re ‘leaky homes’ (not surprisingly due to lowering standards of individual excellence) has saved it for the time being i.e. individualism and a expanded ‘bottom-up’ private sector is again wanted. But part of the problem was originally, in my view, also individualism itself. This was seen by Franklin Roosevelt, a great American President in my book. He faced up to the truth of social class and recognized if everyone was going to get a ‘fair go’ (those on the bottom would have paltry opportunities and access to liberal rights – there had to be limits to unequal rights) that a wider ‘duty to the community’ was necessary i.e. his second bill of rights for America (containing economic, social and cultural rights). The latter was necessary to ensure that the policies he implemented – which lifted the lid suppressing creativity allowing America to flourish – would always protect those at the bottom – not just help them but allow them also to help themselves (their right to development – to follow their dreams and use the talents). We are all at different stages of development in life sometimes we need help but usually, if not seriously damaged, prefer the dignity of helping ourselves. What is not needed is discrimination which crushes us into a prolonged dependency. (While a bit outside of my field, I suspect it is this discriminatory collectivism which is also hated by religious terrorists concerned about the inner being and hence their jihad or holy war. Although, in my experience, the truth will set us free but human rights are at least listened to covertly in our very fearful societies). I have had a look and it does not surprise me to find that US federal, state, employment law and human rights acts have omitted non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin which in America’s case would permit discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic status (or according to socio-economic classes which are not officially recognized as existing). And the latter, I strongly suspect in the US as in NZ, it is a bureaucratically driven and supported by government i.e. in my view, the status seekers rather the wealth seekers hold sway . The extreme focus on money suggests to me you may be taking human rights for granted – am I right? By failing to face the truth the discriminatory collectivism slowly takes over the country almost invisibly. In my view, the Christchurch earthquake was one of life’s miracles – better being on the right track than a track which leads to a nation in darkness – even if it does cost a lot of money, needlessly of course because all the rights should had been included in the first place. I recently thought of one of William Shakespeare’s quotes – ‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy’. I hope you have a miracle.

PS. I should also have added to the above re where individualism went wrong and led to the discriminatory collectivist takeover (in NZ, hopefully in the past, and strongly suspect the US) is that it failed to exercise a wider duty wrt race and women. Again unequal rights have their limits – you cannot deny people the core minimum obligations of the State wrt civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights and should also include their self-help rights to development, human rights education to ensure they are not kept in a state of dependency – see our website, http://www.hrc2001.org.nz, Anthony Ravlich, Chairperson, Human Rights Council Inc. (New Zealand)

]]> By: Anthony Ravlich http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-10393 Anthony Ravlich Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:02:42 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-10393 Re American inequality My hypothesis (as I am from New Zealand) is that America is following similar policies to that in NZ – a major difference though is that while NZ discriminates on the grounds of social status at birth (see UK social class discrimination) the US discriminates re socio-economic status (wealth) but the latter has its origins not in the Corporations but rather the bureaucracy. NZ, the US and many other States are ‘going nowhere’ – ‘freedom and democracy’ is now going in reverse as more countries are becoming authoritarian. Who is going to take risks when countries are going nowhere and in fact there seems to be increasing internal conflict. There are a number in the establishment who know what the problem is but are too afraid to ‘speak out’ about it. While I can only be specific re NZ I think many States have a similar problem. Essentially, NZ’s problem is that there are many human rights omissions in our human rights law (the source is the global elites at the UN who design these instruments) – so it is not just our fault – but it highly favors the countries ‘sacred cows’ and for obvious reasons people do not want to discuss it. Much can be found in my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’, Lexington Books, which is on the UN portal website despite my harsh criticism of the UN. I think the US should look at what is happening to small/med business (see the American Small Business League website and how federal contracts are been diverted to big business on a massive scale). In NZ I am promoting a radical, ideas-driven bottom-up development (an entrepreneurial/ethical human rights culture) which is part of the ethical approach I take to human rights, development and globalization but because it really shakes the status quo and people will only face the truth as a last possible resort they simply do not want to know – its far too unsafe. But this is very short, sighted better to go through the suffering of facing the truth and making changes than having it forced on us very likely after enormous people damage. I am Anthony Ravlich, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc (New Zealand) ph: (0064) (09) 940 9658. And remember, the truth will set you free as long as you are not too afraid to be free and so too afraid of the truth. Re American inequality
My hypothesis (as I am from New Zealand) is that America is following similar policies to that in NZ – a major difference though is that while NZ discriminates on the grounds of social status at birth (see UK social class discrimination) the US discriminates re socio-economic status (wealth) but the latter has its origins not in the Corporations but rather the bureaucracy. NZ, the US and many other States are ‘going nowhere’ – ‘freedom and democracy’ is now going in reverse as more countries are becoming authoritarian. Who is going to take risks when countries are going nowhere and in fact there seems to be increasing internal conflict. There are a number in the establishment who know what the problem is but are too afraid to ‘speak out’ about it. While I can only be specific re NZ I think many States have a similar problem. Essentially, NZ’s problem is that there are many human rights omissions in our human rights law (the source is the global elites at the UN who design these instruments) – so it is not just our fault – but it highly favors the countries ‘sacred cows’ and for obvious reasons people do not want to discuss it. Much can be found in my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’, Lexington Books, which is on the UN portal website despite my harsh criticism of the UN. I think the US should look at what is happening to small/med business (see the American Small Business League website and how federal contracts are been diverted to big business on a massive scale). In NZ I am promoting a radical, ideas-driven bottom-up development (an entrepreneurial/ethical human rights culture) which is part of the ethical approach I take to human rights, development and globalization but because it really shakes the status quo and people will only face the truth as a last possible resort they simply do not want to know – its far too unsafe. But this is very short, sighted better to go through the suffering of facing the truth and making changes than having it forced on us very likely after enormous people damage. I am Anthony Ravlich, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc (New Zealand) ph: (0064) (09) 940 9658. And remember, the truth will set you free as long as you are not too afraid to be free and so too afraid of the truth.

]]> By: Marco http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-5418 Marco Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:07:13 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-5418 Hi, Stubborn Happy new year. As you are interested in income and wealth distributions, I've posted a short comment on the subject. It's called "La Vie en Rose: the Irvine Index". You can find it at: http://aussiemagpie.blogspot.com/ I am still studying some material, so a more elaborate article is cooking. Hi, Stubborn

Happy new year.

As you are interested in income and wealth distributions, I’ve posted a short comment on the subject. It’s called “La Vie en Rose: the Irvine Index”. You can find it at:
http://aussiemagpie.blogspot.com/

I am still studying some material, so a more elaborate article is cooking.

]]> By: Marco http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-5019 Marco Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:32:16 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-5019 The link is Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare http://aussiemagpie.blogspot.com/ I don't have much stuff yet, though. Marco The link is

Magpie’s Asymmetric Warfare
http://aussiemagpie.blogspot.com/

I don’t have much stuff yet, though.

Marco

]]> By: stubbornmule http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-5012 stubbornmule Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:12:03 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-5012 <b>Marco: </b>Omitting capital gains does seem to introduce an unnecessary skew in the results. You are right as well that there will always be estimation errors in sample-based statistics. Fortunately, however, the statistics here are quantiles which are more robust (i.e. less sensitive to inclusion/exclusion of outliers) than statistics such as the mean. By all means post the URL to your blog post. Marco: Omitting capital gains does seem to introduce an unnecessary skew in the results. You are right as well that there will always be estimation errors in sample-based statistics. Fortunately, however, the statistics here are quantiles which are more robust (i.e. less sensitive to inclusion/exclusion of outliers) than statistics such as the mean.

By all means post the URL to your blog post.

]]> By: Marco http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-5009 Marco Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:36:30 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-5009 Hi Stubborn Mule, Interesting subject. Allow me a couple of observations: First observation: I haven't read Bartels' "Unequal Democracy", so I don't know which sources were used in the book. Judging by the NYT article, where the table above appears, it seems the data comes from the US Census Bureau. If so, then I suspect the data is part of the American Community Surveys. These studies, as their name indicates, are based on samples. If a sample fails to include extremely wealthy individuals (say, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett), the results (especially those of the upper echelons in the income scale) will be underestimated. But, perhaps much more importantly, the American Community Surveys do not include capital gains as part of their income definition; while I believe it does include all government transfers (food stamps, unemployment, and such). In this the ABS's Survey of Income and Housing is quite similar: it is also based on a sample and does not include capital gains (although it does include profit/loss from unincorporated business and net investment income, plus government transfers, i.e. pensions and allowances). Why they exclude capital gains, while including most other forms of regular income? I don't really know for sure. But I suspect this distorts the final result, in both the US and Aussie cases, regardless of political party. Second observation: Does it really matter? I suggest a different way to look at this question: any attempt to reduce inequality will likely face enormous political opposition. At least, this has been the historical experience. This, I would think, suggests a part of the population cares about maintaining high inequality levels. Why should those at the bottom of the scale be indifferent? Besides, this situation did not simply arise, for no particular reason. I suggest that its causes may conceivably be quite relevant. I am sorry for the self-promotion, but I am writing some material about this topic and I hope to be posting it in my own blog shortly. If you are interested, let me know and I will give you my URL. Cheers, Marco Hi Stubborn Mule,

Interesting subject. Allow me a couple of observations:

First observation:

I haven’t read Bartels’ “Unequal Democracy”, so I don’t know which sources were used in the book. Judging by the NYT article, where the table above appears, it seems the data comes from the US Census Bureau.

If so, then I suspect the data is part of the American Community Surveys. These studies, as their name indicates, are based on samples. If a sample fails to include extremely wealthy individuals (say, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett), the results (especially those of the upper echelons in the income scale) will be underestimated.

But, perhaps much more importantly, the American Community Surveys do not include capital gains as part of their income definition; while I believe it does include all government transfers (food stamps, unemployment, and such).

In this the ABS’s Survey of Income and Housing is quite similar: it is also based on a sample and does not include capital gains (although it does include profit/loss from unincorporated business and net investment income, plus government transfers, i.e. pensions and allowances).

Why they exclude capital gains, while including most other forms of regular income? I don’t really know for sure. But I suspect this distorts the final result, in both the US and Aussie cases, regardless of political party.

Second observation:

Does it really matter? I suggest a different way to look at this question: any attempt to reduce inequality will likely face enormous political opposition. At least, this has been the historical experience. This, I would think, suggests a part of the population cares about maintaining high inequality levels.

Why should those at the bottom of the scale be indifferent?

Besides, this situation did not simply arise, for no particular reason. I suggest that its causes may conceivably be quite relevant.

I am sorry for the self-promotion, but I am writing some material about this topic and I hope to be posting it in my own blog shortly. If you are interested, let me know and I will give you my URL.

Cheers,

Marco

]]> By: stubbornmule http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-4093 stubbornmule Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:19:38 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-4093 New post on the updated ABS coming soon. Here is <a href="http://mule.posterous.com/australian-income-inequality" rel="nofollow">a preview</a>. New post on the updated ABS coming soon. Here is a preview.

]]> By: Samuel Dance http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-4068 Samuel Dance Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:40:06 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-4068 I think a better indication of wealth distribution is ones ability to purchase a House, which has become an outright impossibility for the lower earners in society. As for our ability to buy a loaf of bread, yes it has become more manageable, but where does that loaf of bread come from? whose pocket is suffering to cause this saving? Probably farmers?..... As its either been imported or Woolworths or coles have driven down their buying prices, which means the trade deficit increases and or working class jobs disappear. As for other essentials, such as electricity bills, water and so on, these have also risen in conjunction with or above wage inflation. Therefore I would have to postulate that the rich poor divide is indeed growing. I think a better indication of wealth distribution is ones ability to purchase a House, which has become an outright impossibility for the lower earners in society. As for our ability to buy a loaf of bread, yes it has become more manageable, but where does that loaf of bread come from? whose pocket is suffering to cause this saving?
Probably farmers?….. As its either been imported or Woolworths or coles have driven down their buying prices, which means the trade deficit increases and or working class jobs disappear. As for other essentials, such as electricity bills, water and so on, these have also risen in conjunction with or above wage inflation. Therefore I would have to postulate that the rich poor divide is indeed growing.

]]> By: stubbornmule http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-1738 stubbornmule Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:44:26 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-1738 @David: thanks for the link. At first glance, that paper also uses ABS data, so I'll look more closely to see why our conclusions differ. @David: thanks for the link. At first glance, that paper also uses ABS data, so I’ll look more closely to see why our conclusions differ.

]]> By: David Laboyrie http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/income-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-1722 David Laboyrie Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:17:10 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1214#comment-1722 Your analysis seems at odds with <a href="http://www.vinnies.org.au/UserFiles/File/NATIONAL/Social%20Justice/2005%20May%2029%20-%20The%20Reality%20of%20Income%20Inequality%20in%20Australia.pdf" rel="nofollow">St. Vinnies</a>. Your analysis seems at odds with St. Vinnies.

]]>