Live data from Hacker News

Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

news.stanford.edu

251–260 of 262 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also uncomfortable with violence but I don't have an answer to the inevitable "well what else should we do". Facts, reasonable logic, and ridicule do not seem to work. Do you have any suggestions?

Turn off the media and talk to your neighbors? Interpersonally, I think we need to keep pushing the belief that there is more than unites us than divides us. At the core of it, we all really want the same sort of stuff (safety, purpose, love, fun, etc.) The more we allow ourselves to be divided (by media, by political rhetoric, by rumor and gossip, by hate) the less likely we will be able to hold those with real powe…

I agree that at the core most people want the same thing but there are bigoted beliefs that are inherently difficult to be a minority around and it's harder to handle. For example, the guy whose face has been punched often recently, he desires an ethnic cleansing in order to accomplish safety, purpose, etc. Should we expect the people who are targets of his rhetoric(the people he wishes to ethnically cleanse) to feel safe talking to him or interacting with him? I don't know, and I don't know if he'll even listen to those people. Has it worked for you with people you've met?

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

#252

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…

Asserting that Brexit voting is based on immigration dismisses a whole swathe of arguments in favour of an exit from the EU. I certainly didn't consider immigration policy as a reason for my exit vote.

So, you're right. There is an excellent Wikipedia article [1] that goes through the research done around this.

That said, the Prime Minister has said consistently since coming to power and discussing Brexit negotiations that immigration - and specifically free movement - is a key criteria to their stance. They wish to end it, as much as possible.

During the campaign, Farage's alternative Leave campaign made this the central issue for many of the numerous debates that were had, including a rather sickening photo on the back of a lorry.

When you go into many communities and discuss Brexit - as I did both before and after the vote - the main driver was immigration, specifically in the context of Calais and middle eastern refugees. It doesn't matter that this has nothing to do with EU membership, it was perceived all through the Summer as EU members losing control and us being "at risk".

In the days after the result, there was a recorded rise in hate crime, my local Polish centre being attacked, people being shouted at in the streets. I even had one colleague who is Scottish but has a more olive tone to his skin than most Brits being told to "fuck off home" the day after the vote by a passing van driver.

The fact that immigration was being used like this was a major part of the debate for me. I work with many EU nationals, many of whom were concerned about how the debate was structured, and shortly after felt threatened.

So, we - those who campaigned for Remain - predicted that immigration was going to be the central issue, it became the central issue, attempts to diffuse it by correcting blatant lies about the effects of immigration were not picked up by many, arguments to enflame people did get traction, and after the vote immigration has become a central tension point in both our society and our negotiating position.

It's fair to say, immigration was a major - if not the essential - factor in most people's minds when voting.

What's interesting is how that breaks down. Lord Ashcroft's polling puts immigration further down the list, but then he was sampling people in more affluent cities that were broadly Remain, because more people live there. In fact when you get out into the sticks, it's way higher, especially in lower income homes.

You voted the way you did for the reasons you did. However the main driver of at least one Leave campaign - and to some extent both - was immigration, and all the discussions are now framed in that context for that reason.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_vote_in_favour_o...

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

#253
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes

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

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially a loophole and there must be a way to close it. Maybe it's naive to think its as simple as being slightly more verbose: "Salary tied to lowest paid employee or contractor"

Aggregate everyone involved (regardless of company) into one category and do the math that way.

I've thought about this and it can't easily be done. Where would you draw the line between the company providing a service or being essential to the product?

For example in clothes manufacturer, which contracts out the making of its clothes to a company in another country. Would the people employed by that other company be counted?

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

#255
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I earnestly and honestly think that if you believe in the notions you have advanced, then you should work towards implementing them. Surely the jobless masses will be happy to work for their needs, and self-sufficiency will obviate the need for any external assistance.

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

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"To say that they are "on the whole good with it" is just wrong."

Do you think Czechs would really like to go back to being occupied by the Soviets?

No?

Then they were 'good' with the change, overall.

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially a loophole and there must be a way to close it. Maybe it's naive to think its as simple as being slightly more verbose: "Salary tied to lowest paid employee or contractor"

Aggregate everyone involved (regardless of company) into one category and do the math that way.

A "maximum wage law" might well be the most effective "minimum wage law" we could devise. But this does leave patent-holders and large shareholders (and real estate moguls) still scooping up an outsized share of GDP. That would be okay by me, IF network effects were being regulated or prosecuted (including under the Sherman act) so that public utilities were being supervised as such. But that's exactly what hasn't been happening for forty years and more, now.

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is a good example of how the 99% vs 1% meme falls short. It's a description of wealth inequality, which is a symptom of the larger conflict between workers and business owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie). The central issue isn't that we have wealth inequality, it's about power. Capitalists get to control our economic planning, have a closer ear of our governments, and have an advantageous negotiating positi…

"Often times it is in the interest of certain capitalists to get our government to engage in imperialism, or destabilize certain regions, which helps lead to the awful conditions for some people in the Middle East, and I think this helps pave the way to religious extremism." This is patently false. The US - and 'capitalists' do not want 'destabilization' - over and above all they want 'stability'. Case and point: Sau…

True, sometimes special corporate interests want more stability than is sane or helpful; so they support dictatorships. But you can't say they've never wanted to off a stable dictatorship, or done so. Note too that U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia is sharply turning - and no wonder, since the US energy industry is now an exporter and gains from instability and fewer energy supplies coming from the Middle East.

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

#259
I've previously thought that wars OR the threat of wars, particularly of mass armies; meant you had to treat the 99% pretty well, or they wouldn't care to die for you. So this article makes me suspect that as drones do more of the fighting, and then finally all of the fighting, there will in future be no practical reason whatsoever to treat the 99% well. Drones stamping on the human face forever...

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

#260
post #136
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have an incentive to exchange dollar bills for some other form of assets. This is easier for the rich, and richer people tend to hold a lower percentage of their wealth in cash. So the system you propose is regressive; it is actually less redistributive than some kind of flat tax. The idea is just incredibly stupid as a way to redistribute wealth.

Well, it did prove itself as a prototype once: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgl#The_W.C3.B6rgl_Expe... Government still gets to redistribute whatever taxes it accrues.

No it hasn't, absolutely nothing on those pages is an argument against anything I wrote. Not only can the rich easily avoid this system, they don't even need to do anything because today, the rich already hold almost all of their assets in non-cash form. So your idea doesn't work even if the rich literally to do nothing about, they are already safe before you even start.

Yes, the government can redistribute money of poor and middle class people that was collected this way back to them.

Post reply on HN