Okay, say that inequality is real, and it's worse than it used to be. So what?
Well, it's more than a matter of one group envying another. Inequality seems to be related to the fundamental functioning of society.
Consider these correlations.
Economists measure inequality using what is called the "Gini Index," named after the Italian who invented it.
A country with perfect equality, where everyone has the same income, would have an index of 0. If only one person had all the country's income, the index would be 1. Measures between 0 and 1 indicate how evenly distributed a nation's income is.
It's generally acknowledged that incomes in the U.S. are less evenly distributed than in most other countries. In fact, many people take pride in that. Thet believe it's the natural consequence of our freedom of opportunity.
But look at the implications for levels of trust. The countries with the highest proportion of citizens who believe "most people can be trusted" tend to be those with less inequality.
Now look at the same measure within the United States.
It's pretty much the same pattern. So it can't simply be a function of the capitalist system versus European and Latin American welfare states.
And now look at the same correlation over time in the U.S.
In years when incomes were more evenly distributed, such as in the 1960s, trust was higher than in years with a more concentrated share of incomes, such as in the 1990s.
So does inequality matter? Only if you think it's important for people to trust each other.
And these levels of inequality in the U.S. may help explain why so many people see the world as warring camps of "us" and "them."
Comments