Lecture Post Week 5 – Income Inequality Between Countries
This week we are discussing Income Inequality Within a Country. The reading for the week is:
Milanovic, Branko. 2010. The Haves and the Have-Nots: A brief and idiosyncratic history of global inequality [Chapter 2 AND Vignettes 2.1 – 2.7]
Carefully listen to my PowerPoint Presentation, where I clarify important aspects and concepts in the reading.
Where are you in the US and Global Income distribution? You can find out HERE
You can reproduce the chart on Global versus National Income distribution for any country you like using this interactive chart at the end of the post on this site
Watch this 3min video on Karl Marx
Watch Branko Milanovic’s Lecture, where he discusses inequality between countries
Lecture Posts Questions:
On the comments section below, address the following questions (answers should be at least 100 words in length and posted by Sunday – This is how participation points are assessed. Please save your comments in a safe document before attempting to post it.
- From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear?
- From the reading what is not clear?
- Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear?
I had trouble understanding the three ways to measure global inequality. How are the countries going to be considered fairly in the concept that they are unweighted country populations when the sizes significantly vary? When would one use concept 1 to measure inequality? I also wanted when the graph for concept 3 (all incomes of individuals in the world counted as one big country) would be useful? Is the graph on the world income distribution similar to the elephant curve? I noticed there was a similar pattern and thought of the elephant curve to help me understand the graph better.
2. From the reading what is not clear?
I did not understand how the statistics for the new countries that used to be USSR can be adjusted for the 1800s if the USSR was counted differently back then. Is the data for the USSR disregarded? I also had some curiosity as to why the poorer countries are not able to claim as many rights to their inventions or creations as the rich countries can? I do not think it is fair that Disney can profit off of something that was stolen from people that they knew were inferior financially. I also do not see why the rich countries stopped investing as much money in poor countries when they can benefit from it?
3. Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways from Milanovic’s lecture were the growth of third world countries, the increasing poverty in the U.S. compared to the U.K., and the shift from a divergence of the three worlds to their convergence. Third world countries like China have a larger population in proportion to the other countries in the world so their growth will affect global inequality. As China’s income distribution increases their inequality also increases. Milanovic points out that the poorest people in the U.S. are less wealthy globally than they used to be in the 1820s compared to the U.K. However, the richest people in the U.S. are in the top wealthiest in the world which highlights how bad income inequality has gotten. When the industrialization era caused certain countries to be much richer or poorer than others it created a divide of the first world, second world, and third world. Now in the current years in the 2000s, the income of China is growing so quickly and starting to have a similar income distribution curve to the U.S. I had trouble understanding his graph when he compared the income distribution of the U.S. over the years and how the poor were less wealthy than the poor in the U.K.
1.The PowerPoint presentation was clear. The image on slide 6, was a bit blurry, but still legible. So, it was not a big deal. Just thought I might point that out. On slide 7, “why does Milanovic argue that Marx was led astray?”, I am not sure if you are speaking. The slide stood there for a bit, I left it playing, but did not hear anything, so I pressed next. I did this multiple times to see if it was my pc, but not sure. If you were not speaking, then sorry I mentioned it. :] Besides that, everything else was well explained, everything else I heard perfectly clear. The charts were explained well also. Thank you for going over the charts that we see in our reading. Reinforced my understanding.
2.The reading was clear. The reading is highly informative. We are introduced to new terms and concepts and a bit of review from terms we have learned. New terms for example “Income Divergence, The Lucas paradox, coprosperity sphere, Jumping ship, and Harraga”. The reading explains the GDP per person and explains the PPP in depth. It was interesting to read about the results of deglobalization and its impact on our world. Reading Vignette 2.3 was an eye opener for me because it mentions that income is determined and based during one’s birth, “citizenship”. It also mentions that “luck” is a factor to someone’s success. Its incredible to know that luck is a factor. It seems odd but it is so true. While I was reading Vignette 2.5, where the reading discusses the migration of individuals, it made me reflect on something I experienced. In 2016 I studied abroad in Italy for two months. I lived in Viareggio, but was able to visit Rome, Pisa, Cinque Terre, and other provinces. During my stay in Viareggio, my classmates and I went to the beach, as we walked through “La Passeggiata”, we stopped by a loading dock. We were struck with curiosity to what we were seeing and experiencing during the moment. We saw a boat, it was not a big boat, and did not look modern at all. We saw this boat dock, and then what we saw next kind of shocked us all, because we were experiencing firsthand the immigration issue Italy was dealing with, and still dealing with in present day. Many individuals started jumping out of this boat and started scattering off to shore, and they scattered everywhere, until they were no longer seen. It must have been more than 50 Individuals. At first, I was confused because I have never seen anything like that, later that night I asked my professor about it. She explained to me that throughout different times, boats bring in immigrants to Italy from many regions, including Africa. So, while I was reading the chapter, it made think back about that one time I saw that, and I cannot believe I have not reflected on that memory for a while, until reading this chapter today. I saw those individuals the reading refers to as the “Burners of papers”. Overall, the reading was informative, and I did not have a hard time with it. I enjoyed the reading.
3.Branko Milanovic explains how inequality has moved over the past two centuries. He explains Inequality within nations, and inequality within classes. Explaining the cleavage, which is the difference between groups in society. He also discusses the income divergence throughout time, and within different nations. Milanovic explains that there are three ages. The age of empires and class struggles. It has to do with divergence between countries and classes. The age of the three worlds and diminished class conflict. Explaining divergence at the peak during given eras. Also explaining the age of convergence and internal cleavages. I understood that during the early 19th century inequality was relatively small, but as we moved towards the 20th century, inequality was rising and eventually hit a high peak and high levels. From the video I understand how the gaps between classes within a nation are now Global gaps. I find it interesting that he mentioned more than once that we do not know what will happen to Africa? In terms of measurements. I also understood when he explains systematic migration. His definition of migration is rational and makes sense when we look at it from an economist perspective. He defines migration as the movement of people under conditions of globalization being conducted with differences in mean income between nation states. In vignette 2.4 Milanovic mentions that migration is a rational response to differences of standards of living, which makes perfect sense to me.
Question #1:
From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear?
I’ve personally found everything in the presentation straightforward and by reading Essay II, it helped me to comprehend the concepts towards a higher level. The examples that were given of weighted, unweighted, and actual individual incomes of inequality makes sense in how each of these ideas comes with a different representation in measurement. It’s very important that countries aren’t treated under the basis of a whole, as we must identify the location of an area and where they fall in the world income distribution. Thus adding to the findings of pg. 88 of Milanovic’s book under Vignette 2.1, overtime class was no longer the intended focus of global inequality, yet became location. I agree with this modification as where countries are, weigh for the total population and how economically well off that nation is. Karl Marx’s ideas also shed light on how Capitalism is directly influencing globalization and this unequal distribution of profits is dramatically hurting all countries worldwide. Thus, the PowerPoint relatively portrayed a supportive explanation for this week’s reading.
Question #2:
From the reading, what is not clear?
While I understood what the Lucas Paradox is, as we recognize the cash flow from poor to rich countries, I would like some clarifications on how while Capitalists were getting richer, foreign investments were being made where poorer countries get a certain portion of that fund. What was the whole purpose then of this Paradox? Besides this, the reading was most definitely attention grabbing as learning about the Harraga aka “burners of papers” (Vignette 2.5) was shocking & bears meaning to how serious migration is. The young men from Maghreb constituting methods to travel to Europe (“heaven”) in hope of a better life, is tragically replaced by death or for those who were successful in their voyage, would be placed in camps while undergoing a process. The Harraga are known to burn their documents ensuring that government officials can’t discover their origins. Hence the camps the many emigrants were placed in, faced disturbing and cruel conditions leading to a rebellion. This sad event highlights just how serious migration causes those to illegally embark on approaches that result in mortality. While this happens, places such as the United States or Europe in this matter, increases the extent to which it’s even harsher to get past a border.
Question #3:
Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways of the lecture are the factors that changed the levels of global inequality. These are the following notable historical events: The Industrial Revolution, WW1 & Great Depression, WW2, and the Rise of Asia. As mentioned in greater detail in the essay, China experienced a growth of income, as shown in comparison from that and the UK. Known as: The Three Ages, there was a range in global inequality through the age of class struggle, age of the three worlds, and the age of convergence. While there’s at first an increase of inequality, this declines sharply due to factors like the Rise of Asia. Another correlation was the US and the UK and just how richer the US distribution tended to be in all stages from the poor, middle and upper class. The same theme holds to be true of the US and China. As China is climbing the ladder of affluence, the more populated regions are getting. As Milanovic stated, in the near future China will reach a GDP per capita equivalent to other countries higher of its own.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear?
The presentation was informative and I appreciated the thorough explanation about the three concepts of measuring global inequality. However, I am confused by the utility of each concept. I recognize that the use of concept 3 is contingent upon the availability of microeconomic and individualistic data, which has only been available since the late 1980s. Therefore, economists and sociologists would have had to utilize concepts 1 and 2. What I am confused about is the continued use of these concepts. Are they not outdated, if we now have data that paints a truer (by Gini coefficient standards) and clearer image? Or are they used in conjunction with the data made available with concept 3?
2. From the reading what is not clear?
Milanovic discusses how the increase in the number of nations is and will continue to be an issue for future measurements of global inequality. He states that if there continue to be new countries, regardless of which method we use to measure inequality, the measurements will reveal overall larger inequality. He goes on to explain that income differences may be found in smaller slices of populations. This is where my confusion stems; wouldn’t these income differences still be captured even if the population split that reveals them never occurred? Is it the change from macro to microdata that makes these differences suddenly observable?
3. Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
In the Milanovic lecture, the main takeaway is that inequality is affected by many different factors. He discusses how the formation of the European Union affected the way inequality was measured and how the relationship between countries can influence these effects. Milanovic also mentions that migration patterns affected inequality. This makes sense because migration was influenced by phases in history, including famine, and industrial revolutions which result in changes in the size of classes, working-class and aristocratic classes. The video was pretty straightforward so I understood most of it. I think a more detailed description of the direct influence migration patterns had on inequality would be appreciated.
1. I thought the PowerPoint presentation was overall pretty thorough and everything was clear. I think I had a little bit of trouble understanding the 3 different concepts of inequality. I’m not exactly sure how the weight of population is calculated in the measurement of inequality, so the 3 different measurements were a bit confusing to me. The reading mentioned the difference in weighted and unweighted values based on population, but I feel like it was also very vague and didn’t explain it thoroughly. I also find a bit of difficulty playing the slides because it isn’t in a video format. Every time I want to rewind a slide because I missed something or I didn’t quite understand it, I have to restart the slide all over again to find that one specific thing. I’ve also tried downloading the PowerPoint to see if I could do anything with the downloaded version, but I can’t seem to do anything with it.
2. When reading about income divergence and how much work it is to calculate the PPP of money in a specific country and how they vary, I wonder why there isn’t a global income with the same PPP all throughout countries. I understand some countries are a lot richer than others, therefore the prices don’t have such high inflation etc. However, if everyone’s income and wages had the same PPP, isn’t income inequality easier to understand in those terms? Wouldn’t a clear and understandable number range make people realize income inequality sooner?
3. In Milanovic’s lecture, what most stood out to me was the income inequality presented by class among nation states and how it has changed since the 1900s. I thought he explained it very well, and was his main emphasis in his lecture. I feel like he could’ve touched more upon his convergent theory rather than just mentioning that it would take years to actually happen. I would’ve liked to see what the most beneficial convergence would be to achieve a gini of zero, or at least close to it, while eliminating the cleavage between classes in nation states.
1.- From watching over the power point presentation, I found everything to be pretty much clear and understandable. The only thing I had a bit of trouble understanding at first was the reasoning of how Milanovic argues that Marx was led astray. Fortunately, after re-watching the slide and the video including the explanation, it all became very clear to me leaving me. The entire power point was explained completely well as I was left without any confusion on the concepts of inequality. The one thing I am curious about is why are there three ways to measure inequality? What stops us from using one way that includes all factors of individuals?
2.- As I was going over the reading, I found a couple things to be quite difficult to understand at first. This led me to having to re-read certain things a couple times and ultimately rely on the power-point for a better explanation. The main thing I had trouble figuring out in the reading was everything revolving Karl Marx and how he was led astray. It took me a minute to figure out his idea and what he meant until I took some time to analyze the graph and re-read a bit more to finally realize that global inequality as a whole didn’t follow through with his intentions. All of this was also made completely clear as I watched the power point which helped me a lot more than the reading itself. Other than that, everything else in the reading wasn’t too difficult to understand.
3.- As I watched Milanovic’s lecture, the main takeaways I perceived was how inequality has continued to increase over the years based on looking at the chart with the gini index. From looking at the chart, he shows that within the U.S, with each event, inequality has only gone up thus leading to an increase in what can be known as cleavage. He defines to us cleavage as the difference between groups in society which plays a big role in this entire concept. He also mentions the three ages, having to do with class struggle, the three worlds and convergence. I thought this to be interesting because it then led to how the Rise of Asia resulted in a decrease in inequality due to many factors. Overall, I thought this lecture wasn’t too complicated to understand, I understood most things of what Milanovic was trying to convey as I related it to the reading and the power point.
From my presentation what isn’t clear?
The presentation was understanding and interesting. I like how the professor embedded a video in the presentation. The only issue I had is that sometimes there is too much drawing on the graph and I can’t understand whats going on. However, the reading that is assigned for each topics helps me a lot because once I can understand the basic concept I can understand the topic of each lesson. The vidoes also helps because it breaks down the information for me and I can conclude what each sides and graphs is saying.
From the reading what is not clear?
The reading was clear and interesting. I like the section that talks about how much income is determined at birth which is known as citizenship premium and penalties. This shows that one’s birthplace can influence the different type of social and economic opportunity that is available for that individual depending if the income differences between countries have a large cleavage, then that individual income will likely depend on where they are born or live. For example, if a person lives or is born in a rich country that simply means they will receive a location rent or premium. Whereas, if a person is born in a poor country, they will receive a penalty because the social and economic opportunity for upward mobility can be very different for that individual because their lifetime income is determined by that county.
3. Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways from Milanovic’s lecture was the movement of how the progression of industrial revolution can increase inequality between countries. After the world war, the term first world, second world, and third world were used to divide the world’s nations into categories. The cleavage between Nation-States is declining because of the rise of Asia but yet still its a dominant one. However, the level of cleavage and rate changes of Nation States is becoming less. It is important to have a different level of the mean income of the different countries because it measures the differences cleavage level between countries due to the movement of systemic migration.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear?
I understood the PowerPoint pretty well. But I was hoping you would go further into the graphs, like what would happen in the future regarding inequality between countries. Is it to increase or to decrease?
2. From the reading what is not clear?
I enjoyed this chapter, I do hope you clarify a few things for me though.
– What is deglobalization?
– Regarding specialization in the production goods, where instead of wasting resources on factories and such, the united states imports the majority of it’s goods? And is that how the united states got their selves out of debt and on track to becoming a rich country after the Revolution?
– Would “rich” countries economy go down the more they let emigrants in? and most importantly why is it so hard to immigrate? Most people risks their lives in hope of beta her life only to be shut out and left on a beach to rot. Why don’t they want these people who are willing to work hard to enter their countries?
3. Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways at least for me is how much Marx was right, regarding the fundamentals of capitalism and our future with it. What really stuck with me is how much global inequality has changed over the last few decades let alone centuries. Following the big bang, inequality shifted, we begin to notice strong distinctions between class and wealth, but then location and class. Disregarding class and focusing on where your location is. Wealth changes depending on location.
I’m still not sure about what is happening. From what I can tell the world is increasing, but my concerns are for the migration issue and where would Africa be in the next 50 years?
From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear?
This well PowerPoint had a lot of interesting information. In the PowerPoint, I was confused about the different concepts of inequality. It seems like the Concepts were similar to each other. Can you go in-depth about these concepts next class? I also was confused about the different graphs shown in the PowerPoint,
From the reading what is not clear
This week’s reading in chapter 2 was also very interesting. I learn a lot of different materials out of reading. In the reading, I was confused about Vignettes 2.3 “How Much of Your Income Determined at Birth”? Can the numbers change as you are growing up in society? How does social mobility come into play?
Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaway from Milanovic’s lecture is the inequality between different countries. He talks about the different groups within each society. He explains that the world was divided into three worlds. There was the first, second, third world, this was created by the industrial revolution. The second world was the world of socialism and the third world was Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The first world was called the global bourgeoisie and the third world was also called the global proletariat. He also talks about the different countries that fall under communism. In the video, I was confused about the different graphs that were presented and I was confused about economic migration.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear?
Everything so far was clear except how to measure global inequality I got a bit confused on that slide.
2. From the reading what is not clear?
Everything from the reading was clear for me
3. Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main points for Milanovics lecture was The cleavage between nation states are on the decline due to the rise of chine but the cleavage still remains dominant. And because of this cleavage the economic migration has risen. Another fact that was pointed out in the video is that an immigrant that was at a lower level of the income distribution could come to the us and be better off.
1. From the powerpoint, I did want to clear up the second concept of measuring global inequality, So this concept is basically measuring the inequality based on the amount of people in the population against the total distribution of that country’s income? As well as in comparison to other countries and their populations? And when you mean “count more”, does that mean it holds more weight or accounts for more of the world’s income inequality distribution? Other than that everything else in the powerpoints were clear.
2. From the reading I noticed that it mentioned the scenario if countries were to split into multiple ones and the solution for accounting for the split, but I wonder if when countries split and form other ones, does that at all affect the world’s income inequality distribution and where people are placed in it.
3. There were a few things I took away from the lecture. The first being understanding the impact of income inequality and that it’s a concept in just about everywhere in the world, regardless of the location the world is just nowhere near an equal place.
#1 From my powerpoint presentation, what isn’t clear?
Nothing was unclear. On the last slide, the image showing the World Income Distribution is a bit blurry but is still legible after zooming in. I wanted to point out that I personally really enjoy these kinds of lecture posts with images and videos, it’s kind of like a breath of fresh air from the readings we do every week. The slides are very easy to follow.
#2 From the reading what is not clear?
The reading is relatively clear and provided insight on many new intriguing topics. I particularly enjoyed reading vignette 2.4 because it thoroughly explained systemic migration and how it is simply a natural reaction to economic differences which I didn’t completely understand from watching the video. I find it interesting that because India and China both are very populous, global equality would rely greatly on the economic success of those countries. It’s also intriguing how in vignette 2.3 Milanovic explains that unfortunately one’s financial outcome can be determined by your place of birth. Although it is always possible to strive for success, your location and the economic status of your parents can heavily influence your overall mobility on the economic spectrum.
#3 Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
Perspectively, Milanovic’s lecture seemed to have a particular emphasis on a few concepts. Milanovic highlights the way a three world system was created as a direct result of rapid industrialization during the late 19th and the 20th century and the resulting global inequality. Throughout the lecture Milanovic also makes the point that the significant increase in China’s population has caused a large impact on global economic inequality which may cause a shift in future economic trends. Personally, I find it very interesting that an ascending trend in population in one country alone can cause a huge difference in global economic inequality. Another topic that stood out to me was how economic indifferences can cause Milanovic’s economic definition of systemic migration which kind of reminded me of how the inflation in property and living costs in New York influence people to move to other states such as Texas or Florida because of cheaper living costs. Milanovic also mentions the fact that future global economic inequality would be very difficult to roughly estimate because of the growth of China’s population and the varying trends in Africa’s overall economic inequality. In general, it is clear that economic inequality is prominent in a lot if not most countries.
1. The PowerPoint was very clear. I just wanted to inquire about the graph on slide 11. This graph means that when calculating inequality, inequality between countries (location) contributes a lot to global inequality than inequality between individuals (class), right? This makes me think back to the Ravallion reading back on module 2, “The Debate on Globalization.” So does location matter so much more because some countries don’t necessarily get a fair deal out of trade deals due to globalization or is it that things have gotten exponentially better for all countries involved in the global economy (increasing inequality with those who haven’t been touched by globalization)?
2. The reading like chapter 1 was also easy to understand and straightforward. I was just very interested in one point that Milanovic made, “a person’s income in the world by only two factors, both of which are given at birth: his citizenship and the income class of his parents. These two factors explain more than 80 percent of a person’s income. The remaining 20 percent or less is therefore due to other factors over which individuals have no control (gender, age, race, luck).” This was interesting to me because it made me think of the intersection of both, like race and gender are important factors in determining the income class of one’s parents.
3. The main takeaway from Milanovic lecture is that inequality has increased exponentially between countries due to globalization. He focuses in giving the changes in inequality historical trend and separating in into different time periods. The three time periods he focuses on are the Industrial Revolution, World War and the Great Depression, World War Two and the Rise of Asia.
1. What is the difference between Concepts 1 & 2 of inequality? It says that concept 1 is unweighted country population, so that every country counts. So how exactly is inequality measured with this concept? I was also wondering if concept 3 would be considered micro data since you are looking at the individual incomes of everyone around the world? Or would it be macro because it isn’t focused on just one specific country but multiple countries?
2. I was a little confused about Vignette 2.3 in regard to intergenerational mobility. Does this simply mean that incomes vary within every passing generation among a family? So, a country with high intergenerational mobility would have people who come from parents that fall within a scattered range of the income distribution?
In relation to the metaphor of the pole and the plaque places at birth: since birth and income class of parents determine where on the pole you are placed at birth, does this mean that someone born into a poor family, who becomes rich will not move that high up along the income distribution pole?
3. The main takeaways form Milanovic’s lecture are the three ages of global income distribution, which is the Age of Empires and Class Struggles, Age of the Three Worlds, and the Age of Convergence. Milanovic describes the first period as a time where the gaps in incomes between the poor and rich were evident; the class inequality within nations increased. This means that the incomes of the working class were increasing for poor people in rich countries. However, after WW1, the Industrial Revolution led to a shrinking in differences within nations, which created a world of three worlds: the First, Second, and Third World. The gaps between social classes became global gaps between the global bourgeoise and the proletariat. Lastly, the third stage is the Age of Convergence where countries with growing populations, like Asia, are becoming richer like the United States. Milanovic argues that we are currently living in this stage and that there is a possibility that will turn into the first stage, before the Industrial Revolution, because once nations like Asia start catching up and bridging the global inequality gap, the effects will bring inequality back to how it was before the revolution.
1. The PowerPoint was overall clear. The different concepts of inequality are measured based on three concepts, which made me wonder how researchers would use the second concept. For example, how concept 2 be useful in a study. The graph of wages’ distribution explained how countries are getting more money every year but not to the people who are received the profit are mainly wealthy people. After the industrial revolution, the gap between rich and poor people expands to an enormous inequality within the nations. Class matter more to know about the amount of inequality until people moved away from farm jobs to cities, the people’s location instead determined more of their inequality.
2. The reading was much clearer because while the PowerPoint summarized, the reading was more detailed about the lecture’s main topics. The vignette 2.2 was interesting to read because it discussed the inequality between countries and how it is measured. The USA is one of the wealthiest countries compared to brazil, China, and India. This particular vignetter also talked about the distribution of income throughout the countries—other nations about how poor a country helps to find aid to improve their situation. For example, the united states help allocate money to the countries that needed the most based on income distribution.
3. The main take away from Milanovic’s lecture was the different phases the world has gone through, called the three ages. The age of empire & class struggle, the three diminished class conflict & class conflict, and the age of convergence & internal cleavages. He also added the new trend of countries like China that have a more significant population size are getting richer when they used to be a developing country. The globalization changes the world for migration to other countries because of more economic relief from more affluent countries. This lecture talks about how poor people are different based on the country because poor people in the US are richer than those in the UK.
From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? The PowerPoint Presentation was pretty clear to me. It was shocking to see the levels of inequality around the world. And how it differs depending on what country in the world is being looked at. The fact that the US poorest is still richer than a lot of thirdworld countries’ wealthiest is sad and shows the disparities of PPP amongst countries. It was also interesting to see how predetermined one’s life is based on citizenship and family income as well as other personal characteristics. Overall the Power Point was helpful in summarizing and clarifying important points mentioned in this week’s reading.
From the reading what is not clear? The reading brought up a lot of interesting points about inequality and its impact as a global issue. Reading about Marx’s ideology and how he was partially correct in his prediction regarding capitalism’s impact on society and the economy was surprising. However, he didn’t exactly have the right idea about how to solve it. One of the most interesting things to read about in my point of view was about the “burners of paper” because I am highly interested in reading about migration and reading about these Africans coming towards Italy was shocking because never before have I read about migration to anywhere that wasn’t North America.
Given Milanovic’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand? Milanovic’s lecture had a lot of different points about where the world stood on inequality according to the period in time being focused on. One of the first points brought up at the beginning of the lecture was that the percentage of Gini was already at an alarming high rate during the Industrial Revolution but infact still continues to increase further on throughout both wars. It’s also interesting to see how countries progress through industrialization and consequently globalization, for example the rise of Asia which is very much spoken about. Race of growth and income difference are two other points brought up when focused on global inequality as it brings up concerns about migration and questions as to what the future will look like.