News The wealth gap - 92% of Americans surveyed prefer Sweden over the US

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gap
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Americans' perceptions of wealth distribution, revealing that a significant majority prefer a more equitable system, exemplified by Sweden. A study indicated that 92% of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, favored Sweden's wealth distribution over that of the U.S. Participants expressed concerns about the fairness of wealth inequality in the U.S. and debated the implications of social policies aimed at reducing inequality. The conversation also touched on the moral responsibilities of individuals within different economic systems and questioned whether equal opportunity truly exists in the U.S. Ultimately, the dialogue highlights the complexities surrounding wealth inequality and the differing views on how to address it.
  • #51
Jack21222 said:
Did I, or anybody else in this thread, suggest "forcing the behavior" of "liking another person?" No? Then that's a straw man.

There is nothing that can be done. The playing field will ALWAYS be tilted in favor of the rich. It's impossible to give everybody exactly the same opportunity. But it's completely insane to claim that everybody currently has the same opportunity.

The best we can hope for is to make the playing field as level as reasonably practical.

It's not a strawman - I agree that regardless of the amount of money spent to even the playing field - you can't force personal relationships.

Actually, the best indicator of this might be the high unemployment rate among minorities - even though there are $Billions of unused tax credits available to hire minorities, welfare recipients, convicts, etc. If a nursing home doesn't want to hire a convicted felon (or want it to be made public) - a 100% tax incentive might not entice the management to hire an "reformed" armed robber (for instance).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Jack21222 said:
This is simply not true at all. Here is a brief list off of the top of my head of advantages rich kids have over poor inner city kids:

Access to better schools, public and private

Access to private tutors

Better nutrition and health care

Better neighborhoods with less crime.

More influential business contacts and potential employers

These factors do not paint a picture of "equal opportunity." It's like you're saying if I played you in chess without my queen, I'd have an equal opportunity to win. This is just absolute nonsense.

Are those institutional advantages (IE: there is a discriminating law?) or just competive differences? Regarding the crime/neighborhood claim specifically: from personal experience - my cost of living went UP when I moved to the city from a large rural community (and my job didn't pay any better so I moved back to a rural area).

I don't think there's any law barring poor kids from going to private schools or eating better. Do their parents have the drive to do so? That's the better question.

Lastly, 'poor inner city kids' is adding another qualification to the distinction rather than just by wealth. Maybe the trouble is more the mentality of the inner city than any intrinsic wealth disparity. (IMO urbanization contributes to much of the perceived problem both in culture and economics)
 
  • #53
Jack21222 said:
But it's completely insane to claim that everybody currently has the same opportunity.

Aren't you being a little rough on Greg?:smile:

"Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
A poor inner city kid has the same opportunity as a rich kid."
 
  • #54
mege said:
Are those institutional advantages (IE: there is a discriminating law?) or just competive differences?

There are institutional advantages in that government policies make it easier for wealthy people to hold onto their wealth and other advantages listed above. And, since the "differences" tend to be passed along from parents to children, it becomes an institutionalized (even if not governmental) problem.

Regarding the crime/neighborhood claim specifically: from personal experience - my cost of living went UP when I moved to the city from a large rural community (and my job didn't pay any better so I moved back to a rural area).

So you solution is for inner-city poor to somehow scrape up enough money to move to an area where there are fewer jobs and no public transportation?

I don't think there's any law barring poor kids from going to private schools or eating better.

This is so absurd I don't even know how to respond to it. There's no law preventing me from buying a Lamborghini either. So why don't I? Oh, right, I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

Lastly, 'poor inner city kids' is adding another qualification to the distinction rather than just by wealth. Maybe the trouble is more the mentality of the inner city than any intrinsic wealth disparity. (IMO urbanization contributes to much of the perceived problem both in culture and economics)

Oh, right, poor people are poor because they have a poor attitude. If only they WISHED hard enough, they'd be rich.

WhoWee said:
Aren't you being a little rough on Greg?:smile:

"Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
A poor inner city kid has the same opportunity as a rich kid."

I know exactly who I was responding to.
 
  • #55
Locked pending moderators' decision about the quality of the source. Also guys - Greg is on vacation, so he won't be responding to that part of the discussion...
 
  • #56
After some discussion with other moderators, this thread will remain locked, due to concerns about the quality of the source.

Though the news report is about a published paper, the paper contains misleading elements to both the people polled and the general public. Regardless of whether the deception was intentional or incidental, it is real: The PBS report and other news articles about this are littered with the misunderstanding that people chose Sweden's wealth distribution over the US's. For example:
PBS said:
The middle pie represents the wealth distribution of Sweden.
No, it doesn't - it represents Sweden's income distribution.

They were not presented with Sweden's wealth distribution, but rather Sweden's income distribution, put up next to the US's wealth distribution and a hypothetical/non-existent one.

In addition, the statement that people's prefer Sweden's whatever is also misleading. The question that was asked is that (paraphrased), if you were randomly dropped into a country, which income distribution would you prefer for that country? Obviously, if there is any income inequality, odds are that you will end up with below-average income. So the equal distribution is really a "correct" answer in terms of math/probability.

The authors also make some unwarranted logical leaps in their conclusions, concluding that because people want a more even distribution, they would also favor implementing policies to make it happen. That isn't necessarily true. The questions are too different.

The original paper can be found here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf

I have found several scathing articles echoing my concerns.
 

Similar threads

Replies
74
Views
10K
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Back
Top