Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

news.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 262 posts

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#241

Post by Trundle »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #127
gmarx wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

". The perception by many is that immigration was causing a drag down on wages, but all the data suggests in fact immigration is net benefit to a population". That statement is the old switcheroo. In summary, the perception of many is correct and they care less about the fact that immigrants tend to, e.g., raise GDP, than the fact that they are depressing wages for people like them.

So in summary, people would rather vote to make their country poorer, than vote for their fair share of its wealth.

It's better to be a big fish in a small pond than a bigger fish in the ocean.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#242

Post by badsock »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #215
badsock wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were true then social mobility would be very low in countries like Germany where the government is more involved, compared to the USA. Yet the opposite is true. The government improving the lives of children through subsidies and high-quality universal education is the most direct means of breaking the link between your own fortunes and those of the family you were (through no fault or efforts of your own) bo…

Germany is one of the countries with the lowest social mobility. Although being poor sucks less than in the US, poor people are likely to stay poor.

Why do you believe that? It's quite clear that it's not true:

http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobil...

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#243

Post by munificent »

openasocket wrote: post #216
munificent wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Many of these are not short term events. You have a several years-long war, with a rise in conflict before it and a gradual repair and rebuild afterwards. There are enough of them that I wouldn't be surprised if the overall graph was smooth. > Also many of these wars were pretty local…

That's a valid explanation for how wars could cause the trends in inequality, but without further evidence this is a specious argument. It also doesn't explain regional variations in income inequality. Look at the list of countries by income inequality: there isn't really a correlation between income inequality and "war-iness". I think wars can increase equality, but they are far from the only cause.

Sure, I'm not arguing that all of the inequality changes are due to wars, just that there have been enough of them to potentially explain it.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#244

Post by explainthisth »

badsock wrote: post #242
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is one of the countries with the lowest social mobility. Although being poor sucks less than in the US, poor people are likely to stay poor.

Why do you believe that? It's quite clear that it's not true: http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobil...

That's not great evidence on where poor people are more likely to stay poor. You'd want to pick a level of purchasing power that counts as poor, a level that counts as not poor, and measure how many people moved between those levels.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#246

Post by hueving »

whyileft wrote: post #111
hueving wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The largest voting blocks that have low turnout would make that gap larger, not smaller. Also, in urban areas where most of these protests are happening the gaps were enormous. There is no proof of that. "If this person who decided not to vote were a person who decided to vote then they would vote in a similar manner to the other people who decided to vote" is stupid reasoning because that person decided not to vote…

Im just helping one to understand why there are protests and unrest. DC had a very small inaugural turnout and very large protest the day after. I was trying to give some perspective. I believe it was about 90% in Chicago. San Fransisco was over 90%. New York City had a large margin. We are talking approximately 45 of the 50 largest cities in the country did not vote for Donald Trump. I took high school civics. I kno…

And 'they' did not vote for Hillary either if your bar is the majority. The problem is that people think their view represents the majority of the country because they won the popular vote. Their view only represents the majority that voted.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#247

Post by timthelion »

edblarney wrote: post #238
timthelion wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that instability is surprisingly good for capitalists, however, I don't know if they "want" that instability. I live in Prague, and the instability and corruption following the fall of the iron curtain made many people very rich. It also allowed many western capitalists to buy assets in this country for very cheep prices. Right next to my house there used to be a park. Now there is an office building there. T…

"I live in Prague, and the instability and corruption following the fall of the iron curtain made many people very rich." Prague went from one kind of stability - to a different one. Without the resulting stability - nobody would have been rich. Yes - I agree - a 'shock' to a system will create winners and losers, arguably, you could say that there is something to gain for the 'winners'. That said - the cause of the…

To be clear I didn't mean to say that captialists caused the velvet revolution, I said that they benefited from it. While the post-revolution years were mostly peaceful, I don't think anyone could honestly say that they were stable.

> There was great sociopolitcal upheaval - and I might add most citizens where 'on the whole' good with it.

This is an extremely wrong interpretation of the revolution, which I myself was also a victim of for a long time. Czech people were very much for change, afterall, they were literally occupied by an army that used tanks to keep control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW3LCclYoz4 (I'm sorry, I cannot find this video with English subtitles, it is the "last radio anouncement" from an independent Czechoslovakia on the day when Russian forces invaded.) The Russians didn't invade a captialist state, they invaded a totalitarian communist one.

The vast majority of Czechs are "good with" the idea of no longer being occupied by the Soviet Union. The majority of them are "good with" the idea of the Czech Republic being a capitalist state. The VAST majority are very much against the current political structure which is mostly manned by people who were in power before the revolution. To say that they are "on the whole good with it" is just wrong. Indeed, there is, on occasion, signs that there might be a second revolution, only, no one is sure which direction that would go (probably not towards communism... ), sadly, if it happens, it will probably in a nationalistic one. The "lets take care of our old people, break away from the EU, and impose strict laws and draconian punishments for anyone who is the slightest bit lazy or corrupt" is popular among a very vocal minority, which might just have the energy to gain power.

EDIT: Just to back myself up a bit with facts, only 2/5ths of the population or 38% thinks that things are better now than they were before the revolution. 17% thinks that things were better then, and the rest aren't so sure either way. That's pretty pathetic, really, when so few people are sure that they are better off now than they were under a totally insane totalitarian state. It's like asking "is it better to have corrupt capitalism or a pile of shit thrown in your face" and most respondents aren't clear on the answer to that question.

At the same time, %66 say that the revolution was a good thing. Afterall, who wants to be ruled by an occupying force?

https://globe24.cz/domov/19542-mame-se-lepe-nez-pred-rokem-1...

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#248

Post by visarga »

Kalium wrote: post #162
visarga wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another way, without issuing money. Create a new currency, dedicated for paying UBI to people. Then require that companies pay part of their taxes in this currency, in order to make it valuable. It should cycle itself back and there would be no need to issue new UBI money. The deeper problem is that companies have a conflict of short term / long term interest. In the short term, they would prefer to sell the…

I eagerly await you building the society of self-reliance of which you speak. It sounds like there's nothing stopping you!

If it's so bad, then you take the lead and provide a different idea.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#249

Post by throwaway_374 »

pc86 wrote: post #140
throwaway_374 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rise in terror is not caused by radical religious zealots. It's caused by bombs raining down everyday on your life from foreign occupation.

This is just as simplistic - and wrong - a view as the one you're opposing.

Well pardon me for my over-sensitive reductionism and not contemplating the geopolitical subtleties of the situation while my town, family, children and everything I can see around me is being flattened by your tax payer funded bombs. Is it still over simplistic now?

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#250

Post by PaulRobinson »

audunw wrote: post #91
PaulRobinson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is really interesting, especially as how it has played out in recent years - right up to the last few months - in the UK. I used to know a guy who worked for a trade union who was bemoaning its demise. In 1997 when Labour came to power in the UK for the first time in nearly 20 years, they strengthened employment laws so well, the need for trade union was perceived as lesser by much of the membership. Thi…

> In 1997 when Labour came to power in the UK for the first time in nearly 20 years, they strengthened employment laws so well, the need for trade union was perceived as lesser by much of the membership. It's very interesting you point this out. Does the UK have minimum wage now? I've always pointed this out in discussion with americans about minimum wage. Here in Norway, we don't have it, yet income equality is stil…

Yes, there is a minimum wage, however many complain it is too low and there is now much campaigning around a "living wage" which is higher, and even a "London living wage" which is higher still to reflect increased living costs in London - a city which needs a considerable army of cleaners, security guards and other traditionally-poorly-paid workers.
Post reply on HN