Posts Tagged ‘poor’
Tags: cartoon, CEOs, inequality, minimum wage, poor, rich, wealth
Tags: capitalism, cartoon, Catholic Church, food stamps, poor, pope, Republicans, rich, Tea Party
Tags: fast food, minimum wage, poor, poverty, protest, Republicans, Thanksgiving, Wal-Mart, work, workers
Tags: austerity, cartoon, Congress, healthcare, insurance, military, Obamacare, poor, United Kingdom, United States
Tags: art, children, food stamps, Käthe Kollwitz, Medicaid, poor, poverty
Tags: banks, cartoon, Congress, food stamps, foreclosure, lobbyists, oil, poor, tar sands
Tags: capitalism, inequality, Marx, poor, rich
You have to look both ways before crossing—because, if the driver is rich, they’re more likely to run you over.
That’s one of the results of the research project directed by Dacher Keltner, which I wrote about back in 2011. The video above [ht: ke] presents other results of their project on the behavioral effects of inequality.
The key, it seems to me, is not that rich people per se display behavioral pathologies—or, for that matter, that poor people are noble. It’s that, within the context of the grotesque inequalities created by current economic arrangements, the rich person is “just as enslaved. . .as is his opposite pole,” the poor person, “albeit in a quite different manner.”*
*The full quotation, one of my favorites from volume 1 of Capital, in the section on the “Results of the Immediate Process of Production” (p. 990), is as follows:
The self-valorization of capital—the creation of surplus-value—is therefore the determining, dominating, and overriding purpose of the capitalist; it is the absolute motive and content of his activity. And in fact it is no more than the rationalized motive and aim of the hoarder—a highly impoverished and abstract content which makes it plain that the capitalist is just as enslaved by the relationships of capitalism as is his opposite pole, the worker, albeit in a quite different manner.
Tags: chart, middle-class, poll, poor, rich, Second Great Depression, United States
Most Americans (53 percent) think the government is doing more to help the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. And only two percent think it should do more to help the rich.
Given the policies that have been adopted (and, even when not adopted, proposed) in Washington, D.C. during the Second Great Depression, how could they think otherwise?
Note: if I had the time, I’d make the table into an actual chart.
Tags: crisis, debt, deficits, inequality, poor, poverty, rich, Second Great Depression, United States
The pathologies in our society are becoming more and more apparent as economic inequality continues to grow.
Mark Thoma explains, as one example, how rising inequality is responsible for the current battle over the debt ceiling.
growing inequality has allowed one strata of society to be largely free of these risks while the other is very much exposed to them. As that has happened, as one group in society has had fewer and fewer worries about paying for college education, has first-rate health insurance, ample funds for retirement, and little or no chance of losing a home and ending up on the street if a job suddenly disappears in a recession, support among the politically powerful elite for the risk sharing that makes social insurance work has declined.
Rising inequality and differential exposure to economic risk has caused one group to see themselves as the “makers” in society who provide for the rest and pay most of the bills, and the other group as “takers” who get all the benefits. The upper strata wonders, “Why should we pay for social insurance when we get little or none of the benefits?” and this leads to an attack on these programs.
Even worse, this social stratification leads those at the top to begin imposing a virtue and vice story to justify their desire to stop paying the taxes needed to support social insurance programs. Those at the top did it all by themselves. They “built that” through their own effort and sacrifice with no help from anyone else.
Those at the bottom, on the other hand, are essentially burning down their own houses just to collect the fire insurance, i.e. making poor choices and sponging off of social insurance programs. It’s their behavior that’s the problem, and taking away the incentive to live off of the rest of society by constraining their ability to collect social insurance is the only way to ensure they get jobs and provide for themselves.
What this means, of course, is those at the top want to dismantle precisely those social programs that help those at the bottom—in the name of lowering deficits and debt.
Then, as a second example, there’s the ongoing spectacle of focusing on the “self-destructive habits” of poor people compared to everyone else. As Tina Rosenberg reports, behavioral economists are finding that people on the bottom “are less future-oriented than those with more money.”
According to these authors, one explanation for bad decisions is scarcity — not of money, but of what the authors call bandwidth: the portion of our mental capacity that we can employ to make decisions.
Worrying about money when it is tight captures our brains. It reduces our cognitive capacity — especially our abstract intelligence, which we use for problem-solving. It also reduces our executive control, which governs planning, impulses and willpower. The bad decisions of the poor, say the authors, are not a product of bad character or low native intelligence. They are a product of poverty itself. Your natural capability doesn’t decrease when you experience scarcity. But less of that capacity is available for use. If you put a middle-class person into a situation of scarcity, she will behave like a poor person.
Really? The explanation of growing poverty is based on the bad, “tunnel-vision” decision-making of poor people, which can be fixed by forcing people to save and providing better financial counseling?
Why not, instead, focus on the real problem—the tunnel-vision decisions of those at the top, to take as much as they could as quickly as they could, which created the conditions for the Second Great Depression in the first place—and then explore the kind of changes that would eliminate the obscene levels of inequality and the resulting poverty that exist today?
Not doing so is perhaps the real pathology of the existence of persistent and growing inequality in our society.