View all notes
Available query params: commented=1, untagged=1
“What uncle?” Vaneetha asked. “Which watch? Were you just now fired?”
“Um, yes. I was just now fired. From Pfizer. Wow. Pfired! So I’m pfucked!” But the p was silent so no one laughed but me. I looked at Vaneetha. “Don’t worry about my uncle. He doesn’t exist. So he’s fine.”
I chewed my toast, considering this, and between glances at Brigid looked all around the room with equal attentiveness, just so it wouldn’t seem like I was particularly fixated on her face (so sharp-boned and precise, but with a pleasant suggestion of former plumpness everywhere smudging it faintly with voluptuous life) and happily analogous body. Certainly she would make a welcome addition to any threesome.
“Is there a mosquito?” she asked. “Or what are you looking at everywhere?”
lol
“So where do you guys live in Israel? You live in the part of Israel that’s Israel or the part that’s not so much?”
Meanwhile rest assured that I have no intention of waging class warfare against you (dad), who are just one of many rightwing voters, therefore negligible as such. Whereas you are my one and only father and thus bulk correspondingly large to me in the father dept.
lol
I was taught, in Cambridge, England, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, to ask, "Who gains and who loses?" from an economic change or policy. This is a question that is often missing from today's media discussion and policy debate. Many economic models assume identical representative agents carrying out sophisticated decision-making, where distribution issues are suppressed, leaving no space to consider the justice of the resulting outcome. For me, there should be room for such discussion. There is not just one Economics.
The choice between consumption and income depends on the purpose of the analysis. In the case of poverty measurement, the answer depends on which of two different conceptions we espouse. The first concept is concerned with the standard of living; the second concept is concerned with the right to a minimum level of resources. Historically, studies of poverty have adopted the first approach, and those that measured income did so on the grounds that low levels of income allowed little scope for saving, so that the income provided a good basis for measuring consumption. [...] The difference between the two approaches can be illustrated by the measurement of poverty for men and women. On a standard-of-living approach it may be legitimate to set different poverty lines for men and women, on the grounds that women have smaller nutritional needs, and this was indeed the case with the US official poverty line in its early years. [...] On a minimum-rights approach, such differentiation would be unacceptable.
The use of consumer spending as an indicator of poverty or overall inequality is open to the objection that spending, like income, is a means to an end. Crucial inequalities can arise in the process of consumption: in the activity of converting money into goods and services. These include differential access to goods and services on account of different prices [...]
consumption inequalities: more expensive supermarkets; higher energy prices/rent; non-availability of goods and services like loans; spatial differences like access to healthcare or parks or education
[...] in the labour market "the most important change was the influx of women into the job market, particularly of married women with children." In 1947, one-fifth (22 per cent) or married women (living with their husbands) were in the paid labour force; thirty years later, the figure was close to one-half (47 per cent). [...] In the immediate postwar perod, it appears that increased participation enhanced the earnings of households in the lower part of the distribution. Summarising the postwar US experience, Nan Maxwell writes that "for husband-wife families prior to 1970, equalizing impacts stem from relatively high participation rates of women married to low-earning men." However, after 1970, "increased participation came mainly from women with above-average earnings growth who were married to high-earning men. Hence, continued increased female labor force participation may increase inequality for dual-earning husband-wife families."
two waves: initially, only the women who really NEEDED to work (to complement their husband's low income) did so; in the second wave, more women who didn't really need to work (because their husband made enough money) but wanted to increase their income by a substantial amount (because they could get good jobs) started working
From this account, it is clear that the relationship between unemployment and inequality is an intricate one [...] Nonetheless, involuntary unemployment is of concern in its own right, and for this reason alone it receives considerable attention in what follows. Unemployment, and attendant job precariousness, are themselves sources of inequality. A person rejected by the labour market is suffering a form of social exclusion, and even if full income replacement were to allow his or her standard of living to be maintained during unemployment, the individual's circumstances would have worsened. Above all, it is a matter of agency and a sense of powerlessness. [...]
depends on whether there's good unemployment insurance etc
With the qualification that we have insufficient information about incomes at the top, we see in Latin America an episode of falling inequality that extends over a wide range of countries. [...] "there is no clear link between the decline in inequality and economic growth. Inequality has declined in countries which have experienced rapid economic growth, such as Chile, Panama, and Peru, and in countries with low-growth spells, such as Brazil and Mexico. Nor is there a link between falling inequality and the orientation of political regimes. Inequality has declined in countries governed by leftist regimes, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Venezuela, and in countries governed by centrist and center-right parties, such as Mexico and Peru." Rather, they suggest that the fall was brought about by a reduction in the wage premium for more educated workers, and by progressive government transfers.
skilled workers need to stop making so much more than unskilled, and there needs to be a safety net
- globalisation
- technological change (information and communications technology)
- growth of financial services
- changing pay norms
- reduced role of trade unions
- scaling back of the redistributive tax-and-transfer policy
[...] we risk creating the impression that inequality is rising on account of forces outside our control. It is far from obvious that these factors are beyond our influence or that they are exogenous to the economic and social system. Globalisation is the result of decisions taken by international organisations, by national governments, by corporations, and by individuals as workers and consumers. The direction of technological change is the product of decisions by firms, researchers, and governments. The financial sector may have grown to meet the demands of an aeing population in need of financial instruments that provide for retirement, but the form it has taken and the regulation of the industry have been subject to political and economic choices.
rise in inequality due to changes in the balance of power