Support NeoGAF

[Ether_Snake]

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-global-income-equality-1820s-oecd.html

The gap between the haves and the have-nots globally is now at the same level as in the 1820s, the OECD said Thursday, warning it was one of the most "worrying" developments over the past 200 years.

In a major report on global well-being over the past two centuries, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development noted inequality shot up after globalisation took root in the 1980s.

Researchers studied income levels in 25 countries, charted them back in time to 1820 and then collated them as if the world were a single country.

The results showed that income inequality dropped sharply in the middle of the 20th century—which the OECD put down to what it called an "egalitarian revolution", notably with the rise of Communism in Eastern Europe—but then spiked more recently.

By 2000, global levels of income inequality were at the same levels as in 1820, according to the report.

Couple that with Global Wildlife populations halved in 40 years and it's not looking good.

 

[squidyj]

we need communism out there to scare the shit out of all the billionaires.

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh hey, look at that. A system that rewards those with capital in the form of additional capital tends to produce an extremely skewed distribution of wealth. Who could see this coming?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Oh hey, look at that. A system that rewards those with capital in the form of additional capital tends to produce an extremely skewed distribution of wealth. Who could see this coming?

"'sup"

 

[Wilsongt]

Well, when people go back to the way of thinking of the 1820s, then obviously we will regress in that direction overall.

 

[LaNaranja]

Thanks Obama!

 

[StickSoldier]

I thought the rich people were gonna be selfless and spread their money out more to the poor people? Why they gotta be so damn greedy?

 

[zero shift]

Just nationalize big industries, have the people in charge of said industries elected via election, and invest in cooperatives. Done.

 

[Wyndstryker]

It'll trickle down eventually. Or so we were told.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I'd like to see a list of what the have-nots of 2014 have compared to the have-nots of the 1820s.

Let's start with:
1) Refrigerators

 

[Giant Panda]

Just nationalize big industries, have the people in charge of said industries elected via election, and invest in cooperatives. Done.

Is this sarcasm?

 

[ronito]

I'd like to see a list of what the have-nots of 2014 have compared to the have-nots of the 1820s.

Let's start with:
1) Refrigerators

2) Air conditioning

 

[Extra Sauce]

Is this sarcasm?

I don't know but I think nationalizing natural resources is key to a healthy distribution of wealth.

 

[enanogrande]

Just nationalize big industries, have the people in charge of said industries elected via election, and invest in cooperatives. Done.

hahahahahahahahaha

 

[shadyspace]

Pretty good time for literature though.

 

[Corronchilejano]

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-global-income-equality-1820s-oecd.html



Couple that with Global Wildlife populations halved in 40 years and it's not looking good.

We're going back to slavery any century now.

 

[Fox Mulder]

It'll just make the inevitable trickle down that much better though..

 

[teruterubozu]

We live in a Dickensian world.

 

[Octavia]

We're going back to slavery any century now.

Considering the treatment of child immigrants in farming fields, we're pretty much there.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I'd like to see a list of what the have-nots of 2014 have compared to the have-nots of the 1820s.

Let's start with:
1) Refrigerators

So in your future, a few people are exceptionally rich, which gives them nearly unlimited influence, but it's ok because everyone will have things like a refrigerator, a bed, and an iphone. Comfortable cattle.

 

[M-PG71C]

Considering the treatment of child immigrants in farming fields, we're pretty much there.

That's it. Slavery exists as does inequality. The biggest difference being people choose to blissfully ignore it and the people to be do their best to hide it.

 

[Rebel Leader]

I'd like to see a list of what the have-nots of 2014 have compared to the have-nots of the 1820s.

Let's start with:
1) Refrigerators

 

[RedSwirl]

So... the times when there was least inequality in the world correspond to the times when communism was most prevalent?

That's it. Slavery exists as does inequality. The biggest difference being people choose to blissfully ignore it and the people to be do their best to hide it.

This is just something I heard so don't source me on this or anything, but I heard more slaves exist in the world today than at any point in human history.

Of course I would ask how many slaves there are as a percentage of the population, because the last half-century has brought the total human population to levels way beyond any other point in human history. But if this is all true, then it's still a testament to the endurance of the concept of slavery, even if it has been long condemned by nearly all world governments.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Exactly. You know what 99.6% of households had in 1820?
NOTHING.

So in your future, a few people are exceptionally rich, which gives them nearly unlimited influence, but it's ok because everyone will have things like a refrigerator, a bed, and an iphone. Comfortable cattle.

Hey, I tend to look at the bright side of things. Those aren't good things? How about vaccines (and health care in general), electricity, communication, transportation, entertainment options, etc? All have improved lives dramatically since 1820. And frankly, a lot of the advances are the result of the ingenuity of some of the haves.
Do you think the rich have more power than they did in 1820? I don't think that's the case. There will always be some level of haves and have-nots. My point is that the have-nots are much better off today than they were in 1820 even if the gap remains the same. We've progressed as a society. Granted, some areas on this planet have progressed more than others and progress still needs to be made, but, damn, compared to 1820, humanity is doing pretty well.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Exactly. You know what 99.6% of households had in 1820?
NOTHING.



Hey, I tend to look at the bright side of things. Those aren't good things? How about vaccines (and health care in general), electricity, communication, transportation, entertainment options, etc? All have improved lives dramatically since 1820. And frankly, a lot of the advances are the result of the ingenuity of some of the haves.
Do you think the rich have more power than they did in 1820? I don't think that's the case. There will always be some level of haves and have-nots. My point is that the have-nots are much better off today than they were in 1820 even if the gap remains the same. We've progressed as a society. Granted, some areas on this planet have progressed more than others and progress still needs to be made, but, damn, compared to 1820, humanity is doing pretty well.

We've had greater means than ever to massively reduce this wealth gap, among improving other aspects of our world that result from this wealth gap remaining. It's not happening because a minority wants to keep its unacceptable and unnecessary level of accumulated wealth. And this refusal to let go of it drives their actions against the majority of the world by influencing decision takers, suffocating democracy as it could be today.

 

[CharminUltra]

I don't get it. Why don't poor people just buy more money?

 

[zero shift]

Is this sarcasm?

No.

Exactly. You know what 99.6% of households had in 1820?
NOTHING.



Hey, I tend to look at the bright side of things. Those aren't good things? How about vaccines (and health care in general), electricity, communication, transportation, entertainment options, etc? All have improved lives dramatically since 1820. And frankly, a lot of the advances are the result of the ingenuity of some of the haves.
Do you think the rich have more power than they did in 1820? I don't think that's the case. There will always be some level of haves and have-nots. My point is that the have-nots are much better off today than they were in 1820 even if the gap remains the same. We've progressed as a society. Granted, some areas on this planet have progressed more than others and progress still needs to be made, but, damn, compared to 1820, humanity is doing pretty well.

Sounds similar to the argument that feudalists used in the 200 years ago.

I don't know but I think nationalizing natural resources is key to a healthy distribution of wealth.

Really anything that becomes big enough to truly influence the electorate.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

We've had greater means than ever to massively reduce this wealth gap, among improving other aspects of our world that result from this wealth gap remaining. It's not happening because a minority wants to keep its unacceptable and unnecessary level of accumulated wealth. And this refusal to let go of it drives their actions against the majority of the world by influencing decision takers, suffocating democracy as it could be today.

Wealth is not just paper. Wealth is also material prosperity. I'd argue that the majority of the people on this planet are far wealthier than in the 1820s. And since wealth is not finite, why should I worry about what the people who have more than me are doing on their yachts on the weekends? (what are they doing though, btw?)
The influence that the very wealthy have on decision makers can be undone right now if we rise up, elect the right people and throw the corrupt bums out. I'll be doing my part next month. Pulling the Republican lever.

 

[Angelus Errare]

It'll trickle down eventually. Or so we were told.

It will, just gotta wait for it.

 

[terrisus]

What happened in the 1830s and 1840s?

 

[marimorimo]

I'd like to see a list of what the have-nots of 2014 have compared to the have-nots of the 1820s.

Let's start with:
1) Refrigerators

"
You're only talking about the "have-nots" of first-world countries, who would be absolutely frickin' rich compared to the "have-nots" of third world countries, who make up a large chunk of the global population.

People living in third-world slums do not have refrigerators. Heck, we weren't poor (middle class), but I considered having an air-conditioner a sign of wealth when I was a kid. When we finally had one installed, I was in awe. We were the only house with an air conditioner in our block.

The real depressing thing is that many people around the world still have 1820s standards of living.

 

[ronito]

why are you guys taking bulbo seriously?

 

[speculawyer]

This will not end well.

This is not even good for those wealthy . . . when things blow up, they are gonna get hit too.

 

[Tempesta di Fuoco]

So when do I start living like Little House on the Prairie?

 

[grumble]

This is an economic drag.

Do people on neogaf believe that everyone should have an equal outcome?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

why are you guys taking bulbo seriously?

they're new.

Do people on neogaf believe that everyone should have an equal outcome?

obviously not.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

 

[Lonely1]

I wanted to post this.

 

[mj1108]

We're back in the 1820's....just like the GOP wanted.

 

[benjipwns]

Report here: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/how-was-life_9789264214262-en

Real wages by number of subsistence baskets building workers can purchase:

Income inequality continues to be largest between the West and the rest.

Also the "world" is a composite of 25 countries of which a third are estimates prior to 1900 and the quality of the data for at least half is bad prior to 1950.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Also the "world" is a composite of 25 countries of which a third are estimates prior to 1900 and the quality of the data for at least half is bad prior to 1950.

You're doing it wrong. Who needs data when you have headlines?

 

[watershed]

This kills me every time. Fox News is better than Comedy Central.

 

[benjipwns]

You're doing it wrong. Who needs data when you have headlines?

I'm even using their own descriptions of the data! (Though I eyeballed the % of the chart on data quality.)

 

[Tesseract]

the tree of liberty is ripe for a refreshing, just saying.

 

[numble]

We've had greater means than ever to massively reduce this wealth gap, among improving other aspects of our world that result from this wealth gap remaining. It's not happening because a minority wants to keep its unacceptable and unnecessary level of accumulated wealth. And this refusal to let go of it drives their actions against the majority of the world by influencing decision takers, suffocating democracy as it could be today.

Would you be unhappy if the lowest standard of living was equivalent to a top margin individual in San Francisco (basically the poorest person in the world had the standard of living as a present rich person in San Francisco), but the wealth gap was still the same (because there are trillionaires instead of billionaires)?

Your answer would indicate whether you are focusing on the wealth gap or the gap in standard of living.

 

[Robot Pants]

Guys, don't think of it as "haves" and "have nots", it's "haves" and "soon to haves".
Amirite?

 

[Kai Dracon]

What I love about the Fox News fridge pic, is that it's not just a photo of a fridge. They carefully selected one of an open fridge stuffed with good food.

 

[benjipwns]

Would you be unhappy if the lowest standard of living was equivalent to a top margin individual in San Francisco (basically the poorest person in the world had the standard of living as a present rich person in San Francisco), but the wealth gap was still the same (because there are trillionaires instead of billionaires)?

Your answer would indicate whether you are focusing on the wealth gap or the gap in standard of living.

shhhh you're going to blow up the whole premise

 

[zero shift]

Report here: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/how-was-life_9789264214262-en

Real wages by number of subsistence baskets building workers can purchase:

Income inequality continues to be largest between the West and the rest.

Also the "world" is a composite of 25 countries of which a third are estimates prior to 1900 and the quality of the data for at least half is bad prior to 1950.

I find this data odd. It makes little sense why Western Europe skyrockets into today, Asia stagnates, and Latin America declines. Do they mean subsistence baskets as in the baskets of fruit? Because that is very stupid.

Would you be unhappy if the lowest standard of living was equivalent to a top margin individual in San Francisco (basically the poorest person in the world had the standard of living as a present rich person in San Francisco), but the wealth gap was still the same (because there are trillionaires instead of billionaires)?

Your answer would indicate whether you are focusing on the wealth gap or the gap in standard of living.

In some ways both are declining. For examples housing and healthcare are less accessible for Americans today than say 30 years ago. But I agree the wealth gap is the main focus.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

We can fight the problem that income inequality causes without resorting to meaningless historical comparisons that make the case of fighting income inequality weaker.