Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

1. Parents farther down the social totem pole are more unhappy and stressed as a cohort. The negative effects of a bad home life on kids is enormous and education is often impossible without dealing with some of these issues. You either spend your resources addressing those home issues are try to ignore them and throw good money after bad. (this also complicates cross-country comparisons because many of our social programs for kids are funded through the education budget where other countries put them in a health or social well-being budget).

2. When it was easier to achieve a higher quality of life on a single above average income you get higher quality teachers. A pattern you see amongst the best teachers who are now in their 50s or 60s is that their significant other had a good job and the teacher sacrificed a higher paying career for better hours for raising kids and the ability to easily move to almost any location with their spouse without their own career disruptions (since everyone needs teachers). This is no longer a good option unless your partner is earning a lot of money.

3. Funding numbers often fail to capture various types of donations in cash, materials, and/or labor. I grew up in a fairly rich neighborhood and my public school received thousands of hours of unpaid labor per year from parents, construction projects built cheap at high quality by parents who owned massive contracting businesses, an art program taught by rich moms who took minimum wage to just fill their day (to be clear, they were good teachers), and a whole host of other benefits. These benefits can be worth thousands of dollars per child per year.

The claim that "people should just learn not to be envious" is a classist BS, because without some form of envy, nobody would be motivated to ask for better remuneration.

Drivers can negotiate too, through collective action. Of course they worry about billionaires, because billionaires worry about them in the first place - the billionaires invented Amazon or Uber, which employ these drivers and are the primary cause of their working conditions.

Well, yes. People in concord hated the regime.

The problem is that we saw crime increases before police protests and defunding movements, including in cities that aren't in California, so it really doesn't make sense to blame the recent "defund the police" movement for all of that increase. When you actually sit down and do the math, there is no strong correlation between police defunding/reforms and the recent crime wave -- cities that didn't alter their policing strategy also saw increases in crime.

The other thing that's worth bringing up once again is that people don't just claim that decreasing crime... decreases crime. They claim it decreases inequality, they claim it's responsible for decreasing other ills. But the only stats that they're ever interested in are crime stats, at which point they just kind of jump to the conclusion that "of course businesses will have to spend more money to armor stores."

There's not good data to support this -- the most convincing example is San Francisco, which when you dig into, also doesn't really hold up. Store closings in San Francisco aren't that much higher than the rest of the country.

> This will increase poverty and inequality.

And again... opposed to before?

What's frustrating about this is that we have a strategy we're trying -- tough on crime -- that is not reducing inequality. And whenever anyone suggests alternative strategies, the response is, "that will make inequality worse." But the existing approach is not working right now. It's all based on fear of what's about to happen. It's not based on looking back at historical data and saying, "we implemented stop and frisk and then people got better jobs." Because that didn't happen.

It's always based around this idea that society is about to fall apart, not tangible data that crime rates are causal for the other harms.