Posts Tagged ‘poverty’


During last night’s discussion of capitalism verusus Catholicism, I made the point that everyone—rich and poor—is negatively affected by capitalist inequality.

My argument was that poor people are put at a distinct disadvantage within an “economy of exclusion,” because they are denied the basic material conditions necessary to sustain not only their individual lives, but also their participation in the wider society. But, I went on, rich people are also hurt by inequality, in the sense that are forced to act in selfish and unethical ways in order to maintain their positions of privilege.

I then referred to the psychological literature on the behavioral effects of inequality, about which I’ve written before (here and here). The latest contribution to this literature was just published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: “Social Class, Power, and Selfishness: When and Why Upper and Lower Class Individuals Behave Unethically,” by David Dubois, Derek D. Rucker, and Adam D. Galinsky. The authors set out to disentangle the differences between unethical and self-serving behavior in relation to social class. Here’s what they found:

Both higher and lower social class individuals can engage in unethical behavior, but the target of that behavior might often differ: The unethical behavior of upper class individuals is more likely to be self-beneficial, whereas the unethical behavior of lower class individuals is more likely to be other-beneficial. This parsimonious account complements and qualifies recent work on social class and unethical behavior (Piff et al., 2012) by advancing the argument that the link between upper social class and unethical behavior occurs primarily for self-beneficial reasons.

As I’ve argued before, the point is not that rich people per se display behavioral pathologies—or, for that matter, that poor people are noble. It is fascinating that there are systematic differences in the target of their unethical behavior. But I’m more interested in the idea that both groups, within a highly unequal society, are forced to behave in ways many of us would consider unethical, whether self-serving or altruistic.

What I had in mind when I made my remarks was, of course, Marx’s statement “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.”

But after the fact, as I was driving home from the discussion, I had another thought: what if that is the true content of the preferential option for the poor? We often think of the preferential option as a kind of basic moral test, in the sense of judging the adequacy of current economic arrangements in terms of how the most vulnerable members of society are faring. But what if there is a somewhat different interpretation—that changing society to eliminate poverty will benefit not only the formerly poor but also everyone else? In other words, creating institutions that eliminate the kinds of grotesque inequalities that characterize contemporary capitalism will benefit even those who are not poor, since they will no longer be forced to lose or undermine or otherwise forsake their humanity by engaging in unethical self-serving behaviors. Thus, eliminating capitalist inequality can be seeing as restoring humanity to everyone, both poor and rich.

In that sense, the poor and vulnerable represent a universal class—not because of some kind of inherent nobility, but because eliminating the conditions of poverty and vulnerability will benefit not only themselves, but all others in a capitalist society.

That—and not pity or charity or individual instances of social mobility—may be the truly radical content of the preferential option for the poor.


Special mention

Untitled ff8d0010-f680-4ba8-a59c-319ed9cb5aa9-1020x695

GOP_Income_InequalityCOLOR Strike It Rich...the Hillary Clinton Way!

This campaign might just get interesting—Republican and Democratic presidential candidates falling all over themselves trying to appear to talk seriously about poverty and inequality.

The Republicans (such as Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush) appear to have decided that the one major criticism of the Obama presidency they can run on is the number of Americans who have been “left behind” during the current recovery. And, as we know, that’s a lot of people, who are either living below the poverty line or trying to get by on stagnant wages—and falling further and further behind the top 1 percent.

Apparently, the Democrats (well, Hillary Clinton) have decided they need to offer (with the assistance of 200 policy experts) their own view of what an “inclusive capitalism” might look like.

In all honesty, I don’t expect much in the way of a serious debate about the issue—much less real policy proposals—from those candidates. Neither group wants to alienate their donors, much less call into question or pose an alternative to the current economic system. But it should be interesting to watch them raise the issue and then do everything possible to make sure nothing serious gets said or done.

I wonder what the electorate will think as they watch that spectacle unfold. . .


Special mention

min+wage_cartoon Paresh-6-2


Special mention

12915jackohman_trib 12915danwasserman_trib


Special mention

Mosher-23-1 B8D8dZnCQAAYqhZ


According to a new World Bank report [ht: sm], on inequality in South Asia, among the United States, Bangladesh, India, and Vietnam, the probability of moving out of poverty within a generation (from 2005 to 2010) was highest in Vietnam.

Just to put a point on it: upward mobility from poverty was the same in the United States as in Bangladesh.