h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's tough at the top - but it's even tougher at the bottom. It's the poor who suffer from stress related illness, not the executives.

But it makes for social "ill-health", too. Increasing disparity of wealth and income is the best predictor we have for crime rates, divorce rates, educational failure rates, mental illness and political apathy, to name but a few. A society that sets the enrichment of the rich as its primary goal can measure its success without even checking on their incomes. Hence the right wing doctrine of making these "social diseases" the personal responsibility of the victims. Which is not to disparage the concept of personal responsibility, of course; merely to point out that it doesn't "float free" of its social background.

Noggin

Yes, I mean 'health' as in mortality rates, average life expectancy, etc.

I'm glad to hear about that 'happiness index'. Tho' it seems to me that it can only really be a superficial change if income disparities are not addressed, as they seem to be a principal cause of unhappiness in the first place.

Of course, there's little likelihood we'll see that from a Blair administration.

Lear

Sorry, I didn't make clear that last post was addressed to Ben (#2420).

And I agree with everything Noggin just said, by the way.

*waves hello to formerly Lear* Citizen's Income is a non-means-tested, non-contributary income made available by the government to every citizen throughout his or her life . I first encountered the idea on a visit to the Netherlands in '93, when I was looking at the (excellent) human rights provision for young people in that country.
As far as I know it was an idea first broadcast by Thomas Paine, who suggested it as a way of overcoming the unequal distribution of wealth and, particularly, land.
Now there is considerable support for the idea (though of course many differing notions of how it might be realised) across Europe.
Some interesting history and discussions are on
http://www.citizensincome.org

<...unequal distribution of wealth>

Interesting thing on this topic I read recently. I'll present it as an example, as I read it - because it puts over the facts better:

Consider two countries. They have the same populations, the same natural resources, and so on. The only difference between them is that the 5% top earners earn twice as much in one country as the other (and so the 95% earn a tiny bit less, in proportion). Which has the highest infant mortality?

Yes, you guessed, the one with the richer top-earners. It seems not to matter about *absolute* income levels, it's the relative levels that matter.

It seems there *is* at least one good reason for the socialist doctrine of redistributing wealth.

And no, this isn't a wind-up, odd though it may sound.

It's a funny old world....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I have read something similar myself. The point about relative wealth being more decisive than absolute wealth (at least, in developed countries) is crucial, because it seems IMO to give the lie to the 'New Labour' doctrine that society can be made fairer without tackling the root causes of inequality.

There is an interesting book by Richard Wilkinson, a sociologist at Sussex University, called 'Unhealthy Societies : the afflictions of inequality', on this theme. He has also written a shorter version, as part of a 'Darwinism Today' series on evolutionary psychology, which is called 'Mind the Gap... health and hierarchies' (or something to that effect).

Hello Elfrida, and thanks for the info. Just 'Lear' will do, by the way. The 'formerly' part is a private joke - I'm fed up with my present nickname, but can't be bothered to try to think up anything better...

Have to go, I'm off on holiday in a minute. (Why do the most interesting discussions alwasy start just as I'm about to go somewhere else?)

Lear

That's an interesting concept (Citizens Income). Exactly where do you draw the line though?

Is it actually feasible to reach a level of universal income which will work as a safety net without taxing the higher earners beyond the point at which it is worth their while to work?

I must admit I like the idea, but can it be done?

And what are the consequences for inflation, interest rates, retirement ages, economic stability, etc?

Is there a model worked out for this at all?

I think that rather depends on why we work. If I understand correctly, the concept of a citizens income would take away the *need* to work. Who would work, and how much, if they didn't *have* to...?

I would like to think this idea is beyond kowtowing to the over-privileged, lest they withdraw from us the benefits of their labours.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Smells a bit funny to me. I say Sweden tries it first, and we watch what happens to them.

They will just sit around looking gloomy whatever they do.

I am interested in your hypothetical example P-C, but surely it *is* hypothetical, and presumably whoever worked it out tried to control for all variables. But I am wary of social theories. Do you have any more information on it?

Madent asked the question I was going to ask about who pays for the Citizens Income?

Veering back to Sweden for a moment, which is often cited as a socialist country that works. I have lived and worked there on and off since 2000, and I found it an immensely depressing place to be. Yes, socialism is wonderful in that it lifts the lowest up, but it is depressing in a variety of ways. I found that the Swedes were reluctant to take responsibility for commercial decisions, and were very very bad at them, that the quality of the work was ok-ish, but that one would be carrying a lot of mediocre and sub-mediocre people, and that there was NO concept of customer service. There was immense politeness, but a complete inability to volunteer information, or help. Coming from a polite and opaque nation myself, I found this understandable but frustrating. It drove my Americans stark staring mad.

Would I prefer to live in the US - which is the direct opposite - or Sweden? I don't know. I would prefer to be poor in Sweden, that's for sure. I think I would prefer to be rich in the US, but I have never lived there.

On balance, I believe in social medicine, and in meritocracy. Is this a circle which simply cannot be squared?

Ben

It could be argued, taking the long view, that the citizens of any given country have already paid for Citizen's Income in that whatever the current state of the nation's wealth, it is based on the accumulated work (paid, underpaid and unpaid) of generations. But that might be seen as more of a moral than an economic argument!
Many people have done costings of how to pay for C.I., some of which can be seen on the aforementioned website. In the UK, imagine replacing an unwieldy and very costly 'benefits' system with a simple 'one-income-for-all' arrangement. It is tempting, too, in the current climate, to speculate on how far the billions ear-marked for less peaceful purposes might have gone towards providing a dignified, healthy, well-educated and independent life for every man, woman and child in these beautiful isles...
*gets off soap-box and goes to make *

Ben asked:

No, actually, it isn't. It's based on available data for prosperity and child mortality in countries throughout the world. It isn't a theory, it's a fact. The *explanation*, if there is one, is open to any theorist, of course, in the usual way.



You keep them as pets? You'll be next on the list (after Ir*q but before...)!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ben's assessment of Sweden is consistent with my readings on Sweden and life immediately following the end of communism in East Germany and the Soviet Union. The problem with removing the need to work is that it leads to stagnation.

If industrialized nations are having this problem, then isn't the problem is purely psychological? After all, most people in the US have their basic needs met... food, water, clothing, and shelter. They also have cable television with 100 channels, a car that runs, a DVD player, and internet access.

Why can't we be happy with what we have, rather than worrying that someone else has more?

They were honeys - good looking, uxorious, hard working young men in their early 30s, they rode shot-gun for me and I rode shot-gun for them in some very difficult circumstances. I am very fond of all of them.

B

Name:Eto Demerzel (U201116)

Chair title:First Minister of the Galactic Empire

Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them:

*waves a cheery 'hello' to Eto. Care for a cup of ?

*waves a cheery 'hello' to Eto* Care for a cup of ?

Hi Blather .

"After all, most people in the US have their basic needs met... food, water, clothing, and shelter. They also have cable television with 100 channels, a car that runs, a DVD player, and internet access."

As usual I wish it was just that easy. This same society has over half its population with little or no healthcare provision. The highest malnutrition rate of any 'developed' nation. About a quarter of its people do not have either internet access or even a phone at home (a good example of this is that many of the families of US soldiers lost in Iraq could not be informed for days because they didn't have phones). And a higher rate of violent crime of practically anywhere outside of a Bagdhad hospital. One GI interviewed by CNN in Bagdhad about his views on all the looting and shooting going on about him replied that it was just like being 'back in the hood'.

Our perceptions of the USA are informed by the middle-class sitcoms and dramas that dominate our TV. The truth for the majority of Americans is anything but the Hollywood dream.

I'm glad I live in the asylum seekers' destination of choice, even with Tony and Satchmo Blair .

Blessings,
Matholwch/|\.

Sorry, Math. I think your perceptions of America are skewed by the media. My perceptions are based on my own observations. Not only am I American, I also spent my formative years as one of the poorer members of it. I've only been promoted to the middle class as recently as five years ago.

Malnutrition in the US has more to do with dietary habits than the lack of available food. Can I have fries with that?

When I was in school we did not have a phone at my house. The school was often stymied by this problem. There were only a handful of kids there in that situation. This was in a city that at the time could generously be described as lower middle-class.

I knew a family that was poorer than mine, but they had a huge tv and stereo, the latest video games, etc. Of course, the kids didn't have any decent clothes, and there was never any food in the house. It was all about priorities. They didn't have a poor diet because they couldn't afford a better diet.