Hi all,
This week we are discussing income inequality among citizens in the world. We are reading: Milanovic, Branko. 2010. The Haves and the Have-Nots: A brief and idiosyncratic history of global inequality [Chapter 3 AND Vignettes 3.1 – 3.9]
Go over my PowerPoint presentation with voiceover, where I clarify certain aspects of the reading.
Watch the first lecture in the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s “Inequality 101” series, where Arjun Jayadev explains the vital importance of understanding inequality in today’s world.
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? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
- From the reading what is not clear?
- Given Arjun Jayadev’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.
Question #1:
From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
At first I was a bit confused on the Inequality Possibility Frontier Curve, but after hearing your explanations and knowing that it’s wealth being dispersed to countries at a certain cap, to where the rich use the rest of their money to their social wants and needs, I absorbed the concept. The line aka IPF curve is the maximum inequality which countries need at most to survive. I also found the Global Pyramid Figure from Milanovic’s Essay III, to be of utter interest as it clearly depicts what percentage of people make up the whole global distribution. This is obvious through the width of the blocks as 77% of the poor are the main category in this statistic. I also wanted to add a comment on the quote chosen from C. Wright Mills “The Power Elite” book. I agree with this quote as most men (especially from Western nations) make up the global top 1% and it’s with their financial decisions that sets off the underlying conditions which the rest of the world has to face. Take the richest countries of the world with the most strictest border protections in place. With these implemented, the unfortunate populations of those who die as a result of migration, is what we see as a large consequence.
Question #2:
From the reading, what is not clear?
The reading all in all was understandable and revealed striking matters. The Vignette on sports indeed assisted the fact of understanding who the true winners are of European soccer games that are known beforehand. With organizers caring to only have the best coaches and players money can buy, it’s evident who amongst who will acquire the medals and trophies. Once again exposing the inequalities in such fields such as in Athletics. In addition, the reading had mentioned chaos and how this affects global inequality. The higher global inequality is, the more global chaos we can expect there to be. If populous or relatively poor countries continue to be in poverty or see the rich collect higher incomes, I feel the world would suffer unimaginably to the point of some sort of worldwide uprising. While the claim I’ve made may be more theoretical, it’s observable that Asia and other countries will take action to gain some sort of justice. I too am curious as to what my peers have to say on Global Inequality and how this will take a toll on our future.
Question #3:
Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways are that inequalities in some way or another, will exist. There are different types of inequalities. There are durable inequalities which are inequalities built based on the structure of our economy and society. This poses the question: if you’re either a worker or owner. Citizenship plays another role into the inequalities faced amongst the working class who’ve migrated here illegally. Another factor is your birth. When you’re born, you may or may not inherit money from parents depending on what class you’re grained into. I liked Jayadev’s snakes and ladder game reference as you will have a higher chance of getting ladders with a wealthy set of parents, with few to little snakes in the way, and vice versa. On the topic of snakes, pictures were shown on OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development) Countries, where data is relatively easy to gather for these areas, depicting the struggles that people have/are facing. When discussing the face of the Iron Man Movie, Robert Downey Jr, as a worker (actor) made millions off profit for every film he’s starred in. What I found highly intriguing are the statistics that while 95% of a normal workers income derives from wages & salaries, for Capitalists, the majority of their income (80%) is from having a means of production. There are also categorical inequalities and an example comes from the gender pay gap between male and female. Again, it’s shown that males get a higher pay on the same labor taken up as a female which is a huge problem.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
I had trouble understanding how the Gini coefficient of a country can be low and still be close to the line of Inequality Possibility Frontier. Does this have to do with population size? I also wanted to ask why countries like the U.S. are so intimidated by immigration when it can decrease global inequality? Does the U.S. government not care for global inequality? I feel that we should realize how important global inequality is because it affects everyone whether they are on the beneficial wealthy end or the unfortunate poorer side of income inequality. The efforts into decreasing global inequality can make the relationships between other nations stronger. A stronger relationship with other nations or countries can allow for more efficient trading amongst each other. Globalization is beneficial for all countries. I do not think there should be such things as being privileged by being born in a certain country, I believe every individual should have a fair chance at upward mobility.
2. From the reading what is not clear?
I did not have questions in the reading. However, after reading the section on globalization I understood why decreasing global inequality can be more complicated than we think. We have to consider how the inequality will be considered since there are countries with different population sizes, Gini coefficients, and wealth. Trying to improve one country might not be effective for another because of all the different things to consider. At the end of Essay III, I agree that in order for global inequality to be focused on people all around have to realize they have a relation to it. I like how it states that if the countries are not happy about increasing numbers of migration into the country then they should put an effort towards global equality.
3. Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
Jayadev’s lecture emphasized the inequality between workers and those who own property. Those who are wealthy are able to afford to own more property compared to lower-income classes. Most of the wealth from the top 1% comes from owning property where the lowest 40% has most of their wealth coming from wages and salaries. What would it take to increase labor share to decrease inequality? Being educated pays way more now than it did in the 80s, for those who did not finish high school had a harder time. Marketing incomes are unequally distributed where the amount of people taxed is not enough to decrease income inequality. How did Ireland decrease income inequality so significantly after taxes and transfers? Global inequality can be reduced if we allow more migration from poor to richer countries. Where you are born plays a role in your social class ranking in the world. He also mentions that your parents will also play a role in your upward mobility in society. Our identity will also play a role in upward mobility because of categorical inequality.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
I thought the PowerPoint was illuminating. I appreciate the deeper dive into the different uses of concepts one, two, and three as far as measuring global inequality and how each method can potentially yield different results. Concept one is instrumentalized by looking at GDP and income inequalities between countries, so I do wonder if this is the concept that it utilized most commonly during typical economic and sociological measures of inequality. Concept two uses GDP per capita and therefore takes into account a country’s population. I believe using both concepts in conjunction would yield accurate results, but it would not be useful comparing societies over time.
2. From the reading what is not clear?
When I first started reading Milanovic’s Vignette 2.3: “How Much of Your Income Is Determined at Birth?”, I was intrigued but figured I already had an understanding of what he meant. However, as I read on, I realized that this notion is truer than I realized. Milanovic discusses a metaphorical situation where everyone on earth is placed on a pole, pinned to where he is born on this pole of global income. Milanovic explains how, depending on social mobility, one’s place on the pole is unlikely to be changed by effort or luck. Milanovic even attributes as much as 80% to one’s birth. I suppose I do not think anything was unclear about this, just drastically surprising.
3. Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways from Dr. Jayadev’s lecture is that inequality is pervasive in all countries and that it is subject to change. He mentions that the labor share is drastically different today than it was in the 1960s. He states how the laborshare in OECD countries has decreased, which has varying consequences, one of the most pertinent being an increase in global inequality. Dr Jayadev discusses how in today’s society, social mobility is not pronounced. As a result, only rich workers, like stars, athletic icons, etc. are the only people who continue to grow economically. He states that society as existing today perpetuates a cycle of inequality.
1.- Based on watching over the power point presentation, I found majority of all the slides to be quite understandable. Topics ranging from the global inequality data of countries and how unequal the world is today were alright in terms of what I understood. The only thing I had trouble understanding in this power point presentation was the inequality possibility frontier. I tried re-watching the slide but I was confused on how it relates to the gini coefficient and how the graph is measured. Overall, I found everything else to be sort of simple in terms of reading the data between countries and relating it to their populations and individual incomes.
2.- As I went about the reading, I didn’t really have any questions regarding towards any confusion. I did found it interesting however that simply improving one country isn’t always the best idea since it may affect another country in terms of inequality. This makes me realize that on a global scale, these countries react to change almost as if it’s a domino effect. I say this because it relates to each countries gini, population and individual incomes. As a result, I didn’t really find this weeks reading to be any complicated to understand but I would say that this week’s chapter was more understandable than the previous ones.
3.- As I watched over Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, the main takeaways I noticed is the fact that there are many structures that prevent people from improving in life. This is obviously due to the serious levels of inequality. Although to be exact, based on what he says we know that there are multiple forms of inequality. For example, durable inequalities are inequalities that are built within the structure of an economy and society. Another form is categorical inequalities which can be explained through the fact that men and women don’t have equal pay since men gain more than women. Arjun also brings up the fact that most rich people’s income come from ownership. You could relate this to the ownership of property which is where majority receive their income from. Overall, I pretty much understood everything within this lecture which I found to be very interesting when I thought deeper into how the economy and society is formed on an unequal platform.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
The presentation this week was very clear and understanding. What was interesting is the visualization on the 8th slide. It was good to see how the distribution of income in 1800, 1975, and 2010 has changed over time due to the inflation-adjusted in the average income per country and the estimates measure of inequality within each country. The 11 slides mentioned that we are living in a time where we are experiencing a gigantic inequality transition. With the progression of the new innovative ideas, there will be a rise in global inequality due to the rapid growth in China and India. Also, the last slide mentioned something important that we should all care about global inequality because the more power the elite the more they are in control of the American society and this will result in a wider gap between the rich and poor which can cause social tensions.
2. From the reading what is not clear?
The reading is becoming more interesting as it correlated to our class discussion. I like the section that asked the question, where in the Global income distribution you are at?. This section of the reading lays out the steps you need to take to find out the answer. Also, when we are comparing our welfare to other people who live in a different country, we should put into consideration that the price level is different among other countries. If you live in a poor country the lower the price level will be which means you will have to adjust your calculated income. Whereas, if you lived in the United States you don’t have to adjust your calculated income because the international calculations already reflected the US price level which is equal to the international price level.
3. Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaway from Arjun Jayadev’s lecture is that in life some people will always face numerous obstacles due to structural inequality. On the other hand, some people’s pathway is already clear and ready for them which makes it easier for them to achieve their true potential regardless of structural inequality. Your birthplace can determine your life outcomes because the place you are born into determining what opportunities you have access to which can better help you to get ahead and be better in the global distribution. Arjun explained that this is called Durable inequalities. These are inequalities that are embedded in the structure of societies that prevents people from getting ahead in life. This remains me of reading that the country you are born into can influence the types of social and economic benefits you have access to known as citizenship and penalties.
1, The power point presentation was clear and informative. I used the lecture to help me with the reading. I went back and forth, and it helped me understand topics better. I could agree with llora Paul, the similar thing happened to me regarding the IPF. I had to turn to the lecture to understand it better. Your explanation was easier to dissect and comprehend, it might be due to all the reading, but I had to pause on that topic, like whoa! But your lecture helped me. The chart on slide 10, I was able to understand what is telling us from your explanation. However, my comment regarding the chart of different countries and income classes in global income distribution in 2008, is that the chart included in vignetter 2.2, shows the US poor start at the 70 percentile, and the chart in the PowerPoint lecture chart shows the US poor starts a bit pass the 50 percentile, does this mean that the increase happened in just a couple years?
2. I had my ups and downs with the reading. Like I mentioned in answer one, but I referred to the lecture to help guide me. Overall, I understand what was being translated to us. We were introduced to new terms, and new ideas, such as why and how Asia and Latin America mirror one another, the Inequality possibility Frontier (IPF), The Global Pyramid, the whales that carry the world on their backs, The trilemma of globalization, the ideas of a global middle class, inequality in incomes between the US and the European union, The Gilded Age, the great American consumption binge. Milanovic quotes Marx, “Mankind…inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present” (Milanovic pg. 119). The quote resonated with me because I feel like this is true, and we can apply this to our daily lives, independently.
3. The main take away from Arjun Jayadev’s lecture is that structural features in societies, which are out of our control contribute to inequality within a society and around the world. He explains how these factors contribute to inequality. The durable inequalities are built into the structure of the economy and within society. Arjun Jayadev explains the classical concern, the labor share of total income, the inequality among the 99%, inequality among nations, inequality due to certain percentages, and categorical inequalities. All these factors are essential in the study of inequality. Arjun breaks down the classical concern, which is your position in relation to production. (worker or owner). Explaining how Factors like your citizenship, or the position of one’s parents impacts the chances of getting ahead in life. The caste in which you are born in, social networks, genetics, non- cognitive traits, schooling, environment, group membership, race, religion, and gender, all impact the percentage of inequality. He also discusses how creating borders increases the rate of inequality because borders create a problematic barrier to social mobility, and a barrier to reduce inequality. He shows a powerful image of a young girl named Angie Valeria, who was 23 months old who was deceased along with an adult who was carrying her on her back. It was such a powerful image to look at. They were trying to escape poverty in El Salvador and migrating. The image exposes the cause and effect of borders, and how boundaries can create violent and brutal inequalities. Overall, I understood his lecture, and it was informative and a powerful one.
From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
In the PowerPoint slide I found the last slide about the quote Interesting because during the time that C. Wright Mills wrote this quote the man was in charge of everything. Any life decision didn’t affect only one person, it affected the whole family. We see this in today’s society with the people in power now. Their actions have affected the way the economy is shaped today
From the reading what is not clear?
In the reading I was confused about Vignettes 3.2 “Does the World Have a Middle Class”? In society the classes are known as rich, middle and poor. If the world doesn’t have a middle class then what is the category to which we put them in? Do the middle class matter to society? Also without the middle class how can we distinguish between the people who are financially stable to the people who needs the help.
Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways from Arjun Jayadev’s lecture is that there is no way in ecasping inequality. Inequality will always be a part of an individual’s life. In the lecture he uses the game of snake and ladder to refer to inequality. He talks about the different types of inequality. One of them that he mentions is durable inequality, Durable inequality in “inequality built into the strict of the economy and society” according to the video.Durable inequality is comparing your status where you live in the world. Inequality plays a part in the family that you were born into.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
From this week’s PowerPoint I had trouble understanding The Inequality Possibility Frontier (an absolute poverty line that no one could live without) slide. You had said “The elite gives the minimum of the total to the rest of the population” I didn’t quite understand this. I found it very interesting how much inequality exists in the world. The fact that some continents/countries, like Africa, continue to get poorer while countries like Japan keep growing financially is unethical in my opinion. If you are amongst the richest in India you are still 20% of the poorest persons in the world yet if you are amongst the richest in the United States you are part of the global elite.
2. From the reading what is not clear?
The reading was thorough for myself. My takeaway from the reading was the importance of knowing your “location” when looking to live in a country. Each country has a median income and being born in an underdeveloped country sometimes guarantees no income growth for its citizens. Location has become 80% of the main reason individuals are either thriving or barely surviving, for individuals who are lucky to be born in a rich country they will have access to more money and services as opposed to an individual born in a poor country who will lack income and services.
3. Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways of Jayadev’s lecture was the labor share income inequality. While some individuals earn low yearly incomes others earn incomes up to seven digits yearly. These are all included in the labor share income, due to this it declines. While some individuals such as athletes, entertainers, CEOs, etc. earn vasts amounts of money, laborers earn below income. I also took away how much of an impact borders make for societies. The surrounding communities by the border between the United States and Mexico are two economically different places.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
Everything for in the power point was clear.
2. From the reading what is not clear?
Everything from the reading is clear.
3. Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
Arjun Jayadev main takeaway is the study of durable inequality. He also spoke about different inequalities such as one happening at birth where the best thing to do is to choose your parents at birth meaning, your parents lifestyle has a lot to do with your upbringing. Also another point is categorical inequalities where humans are grouped into different categories which will determine where we land in the income distribution. Basically Arjun spoke about different structures that cause inequality such as why do some people get ahead and stay ahead while some are stagnant.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
I enjoyed this week’s presentation, as you paid extra attention to why we should care. I have always been passionate about human rights and international law. Urging me to ask the question, why instead of helping these countries out, we are closing our doors? If we close our doors and these countries fail, what would happen to our global economy? The weight of the economy can’t surely fall only “elite” countries? If we don’t want “them” in our countries, surely we should be able to provide aid, and help these countries out? As we strip most of them of the natural resources and leave with nothing to trade. Why is it a hard concept for these world leaders to understand?
2. From the reading what is not clear?
I started highlighting and annotating, which is making me understand the readings much better. I do have a question can there ever be a global government? If so how would it work? Would it ever work?
3. Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
My main takeaways are life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you going to get. When you’re a child your unconscious of the world around you, but regarding statistics, your life map is already laid out for you. While watching my favorite show Criminal Minds, SSA Gideon said “ Biology s the gun, psychology is the bullet, and the environment is the gun”. So do we ever have a chance? You can work as hard as you want and achieve nothing. You have to rely on chances, which can cause you to lose everything, even if you have nothing. Why do we allow this? Allow a world where we are all citizens to be unequal? No one deserves to not be given a chance.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
I enjoyed this week’s presentation, as you paid extra attention to why we should care. I have always been passionate about human rights and international law. Urging me to ask the question, why instead of helping these countries out, we are closing our doors? If we close our doors and these countries fail, what would happen to our global economy? The weight of the economy can’t surely fall only “elite” countries? If we don’t want “them” in our countries, surely we should be able to provide aid, and help these countries out? As we strip most of them of the natural resources and leave with nothing to trade. Why is it a hard concept for these world leaders to understand?
2. From the reading what is not clear?
I started highlighting and annotating, which is making me understand the readings much better. I do have a question can there ever be a global government? If so how would it work? Would it ever work?
3. Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
My main takeaways are life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you going to get. When you’re a child your unconscious of the world around you, but regarding statistics, your life map is already laid out for you. While watching my favourite show Criminal Minds, SSA Gideon said: “ Biology s the gun, psychology is the bullet, and the environment is the gun”. So do we ever have a chance? You can work as hard as you want and achieve nothing. You have to rely on chances, which can cause you to lose everything, even if you have nothing. Why do we allow this? Allow a world where we are all citizens to be unequal? No one deserves to not be given a chance.
Question #1
From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
Your PowerPoint presentation was relatively clear and concise. The statistical information and graphs included in the presentation were a bit difficult to understand at first, especially the one in slide 13 where the Gini index of specific countries are being compared, but once you explain the information on the graph it becomes more comprehensible. After reading all the slides and listening to the further explanations of them I was able to understand the term Gini index a bit more, a concept I was having a bit of trouble understanding at first. Now I’m able to easily understand that a higher Gini coefficient indicates that there is a higher amount of inequality and that in these cases the wealthier few are receiving large percentages of the total income for the total population. Whereas a lower Gini coefficient indicates the opposite, less inequality and an income distribution that isn’t entirely even but less concentrated on solely the wealthy few of that population.
Question #2
From the reading what is not clear?
The reading was clear and it shed a lot of light on the circumstances that global inequality creates. Capitalism can even be found in soccer where wealthier countries have the funds necessary to have the best equipment, best trainers and coaches, best advertisement and the best resources necessary to make a great successful team possible. Poor countries don’t necessarily have such monetary resources and it seems that in many cases talent may not even matter when you play for a team that doesn’t have the funds needed to compete with other teams that might have practically the best of everything. The reading tends to emphasize the fact that social mobility is really only plausible depending on where you are born and who your parents are. Being born into a low income status can disadvantage even those in sports teams.
Question #3
Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
Jayadev’s lecture places a large emphasis on how much of an impact your place of birth and the status of your parents can have on your own economic status. He compared this inequality to the board game snakes and ladders which made this concept a bit easier to understand. Those born in poor countries to poor families may not be as lucky or have much social mobility compared to someone who is born in a wealthy country to wealthy parents who will most likely have a higher chance at being financially successful. It was interesting to take into account how in one of his graphs, from 1960-1980 college graduates and high school dropouts both had a steep increase in success levels. Around 1988, the success levels for high school dropouts began to deplete and has continued to have a general declining trend. What I’m curious about is how in present day 2020 a lot more young adults are becoming entrepreneurs, investing in stocks, opening small businesses or starting careers in real estate which often don’t require a degree. I wonder if overtime this increasing trend in skipping a degree and choosing other routes may cause that decreasing trend on the graph to increase once more. However, my observation is most likely far too minuscule to possibly have a large impact on a graph that includes such a large database.
From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share?
For the most part, then presentation was extremely clear, but what I didn’t quite understand was the Gini coefficient and the Inequality Possibility Frontier and what is the point of using the IPF. I like the way that you mentioned y both sides to global inequality and explained the reasons to why it is important. I agree with the quote that you presented at the end because it is something that has been true for many years and like you said in your presentation it is 2020 and in the politics in the U.S, the majority of the individuals are men.
From the reading what is not clear?
Overall, everything in the reading was very clear except for vignette 3.6 because Milanovic talks about the real causes of the crisis, but I couldn’t really understand what they were.
Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand?
The main takeaways of the lecture was the different types inequality and the different explanations that he gave. One of the things that surprised me during the lecture was when Arjun Jayadev mentions his daughter and the board game because in a way he mentions an example of inequality in life. He mentioned that the game was about luck and in a way life is like that. Moving away from inequality when you’re born into it is about having luck because there are many people who aren’t able to move away from poverty, but there are others who are presented with life opportunities. For example, the famous singer, Cardi B, was born into poverty, but she is now one of the richest singers in the world. Apart from this, he talks about the percentage of inequality that you are in depending of the country you are born into. This was very interesting for me because it shows the importance of global inequality and the importance of comparing and contrasting inequality among countries.
1. The powerpoint was very clear. Something I found interesting from the powerpoint was the last slide, specifically how what happens in America affects the whole world since that was what I was thinking of when I read the point of there being no global government to address complaints to. While there is no global government, there are these couple of countries whose decisions affect the economic situation of all countries around the world.
2. Everything was very clear and straightforward. I was a little confused by the inequality possibility frontier but the PowerPoint presentation helped clear that up. Something that I found really interesting was Vignette 3.7 because I’m very interested in colonization and its lasting effects today (ex: colorism, racism, etc.). I wonder if what is described in this vignette, colonizers extracting so much out of these colonies, may in part help explain the economic situations of some of these colonized regions. Basically, did colonization put these regions in an economic uphill battle that they haven’t been able to overcome and which countries, who were once the colonizers, continue to take advantage of?
3. The main takeaways from the video lecture is that there are durable inequalities that help explain inequality today. These durable inequalities are separated into five categories: position in relation to production, inequality within the 99% of workers, due to citizenship, due to birth and categorical inequalities. In explaining some of these, the main takeaways were that capitalists earn most of their wealth from being owners rather than from their salaries resulting in inequality of wealth being much bigger than inequality of income. Inequality within the 99% is due to difference in skills, decline in unions, globalization, tax policies and macroeconomic policies. However, like Branko has emphasized in his book, the main takeaway for me was that inequality between nations is very important because depending on where you’re born (which you have no control over) being poor might look and feel very different.
1. Everything in the PowerPoint was very clear, I do feel like it helped clear up questions I had from the reading, which were mostly regarding the global pyramid and the Inequality Possibility Frontier. From what I understood, the IPF is a line that represents the minimum amount needed for a person to survive, therefore the rich cannot appropriate from this, but they can from the remaining amount. This calculates how much the elite class can possibly extract from the population, while still leaving them at a subsistence level, pushing the limits of inequality before societies become nonfunctioning.
2. The reading was clear but the only thing I didn’t quite understand before watching the PowerPoint was the information presented in Figure 6. I wasn’t quite sure what it meant by “successive 20% percents of global income,” but now I understand that it was referring to what percentage of poor or rich people would represent 20% of the entire global income. I was very surprised to see that 77% of people hold 20& of the global income while ONLY 1.75% of the richest people hold that amount of the income as well. It really does show just how unequal the world is.
3. I found the video lecture very interesting and informative. The main takeaways for me was how inequality is affected by the labor share income and how the Human Development Index is related to location and the rise of inequality. Arjun discussed the early debates which questioned whether it was worth looking at how labor share of income related to income distribution. According to the lecture, data suggests there has been a decline in labor share of income in OECD countries which leads to an increase in inequality. Something that really stood out to me from the lecture, was the question about overestimated labor share of income and whether workers with high incomes should be included in this category (like famous actors and athletes). I personally don’t think it is right to include workers that make millions from their jobs, because it can skew inequality given there are still other people in that same “working class” that earn not even a fraction of that. Jayadev also spoke about the Human Development Index, which measures a persons’ life expectancy, income, and education. He stated that depending on location, the HDI can be higher than other places, for example the United States and Mexico. Jayadev pointed out that although these two countries share a border, living 5 miles above the US and Mexico border, and living 5 miles below it can seriously affect your opportunities in life and position on the global income distribution spectrum.
1. This week’s PowerPoint, in the beginning, I had a problem understanding the slide of the graph from the haves and the have-not’s book. This slide was a pyramid where each block represented 20 percent of the world’s income. I could not understand why each block was only worth 20 percent, but after hearing the explanation, I understood every class handle 20 percent of the money, no matter the number of people in each box. On slide 14, I agree with the question of why we should care about global inequality. We should care because it’s not ethical for people to have all the money in the world while others are starving.
2. The reading was interesting to read; however, I was confused about the section on globalization and global inequality. I was mainly confused with the explanation that globalization does not influence all the countries the same. After reading the vignette 3.3, it is surprising that the United States is the same in terms of inequality in Europe because I always thought the U.S. had more inequality than Europe, considering they have many of the one percent living in the United States. The reading also compared other countries to each other, Latin American and Asia, to their inequality, concluding these countries were the middle class of the world because of the similarities in the Gini coefficient.
3. The main take away from the video why should we care was how inequality had changed the world. The labor market shifted to desiring more people with a degree that would be more qualified for jobs. There is a decline in people who have skills rather than a bachelor’s degree. A larger portion of the income distribution is going to people with workers from a corporation rather than owning land. The wages of people are relatively low compared to the salary of the owners of the company because of all the gain surplus. The video also mentions where you are born determines the success rate of having a higher income. For instance, our parent’s background influences the opportunities we have throughout our lives.
1. The powerpoint presentation was clear. It also helped me to understand more of the income class distribution in the world and how it contributes to global inequality. Most specifically how just because someone may be in a lower income class in their country, it does not necessarily mean that they’re of the poorest in the world and if people in a poor country are. However, when you mentioned that people in a poor country that are rich are among the world’s richest, would that be the “elites” or would/could it be equivalent to the poor or lower class income group in the world’s richest countries? One comment I would like to make is that I think that it is important to look at global inequality in terms of today and how you mentioned COVID-19. This is because healthcare and access to it is a necessity and when people don’t have regular access to it or can afford it, it doesn’t just affect their health but the health of others too. Also on this topic, traveling to countries that don’t have that, puts a lot of people at risk too, not just the people that live there but the travelers too and they travel to other places and interact with people and it’s just a cycle.
2. The reading was pretty clear and I understood but I did need to re-read some sections.
3. There were a few takeaways. One happened to be that countries are in the same or similar circumstances internally as others regarding inequalities and can be compared to each other like with Latin America and Asia. Another takeaway was how income inequality contributes to global inequality, and how increasing wealth at the top creates in a sense stagnation of wealth in lower income classes.
1. The powerpoint presentation was clear. It also helped me to understand more of the income class distribution in the world and how it contributes to global inequality. Most specifically how just because someone may be in a lower income class in their country, it does not necessarily mean that they’re of the poorest in the world and if people in a poor country are. However, when you mentioned that people in a poor country that are rich are among the world’s richest, would that be the “elites” or would/could it be equivalent to the poor or a lower class income group in the world’s richest countries? One comment I would like to make is that I think that it is important to look at global inequality in terms of today and how you mentioned COVID-19. This is because healthcare and access to it is a necessity and when people don’t have regular access to it or can afford it, it doesn’t just affect their health but the health of others too. Also on this topic, traveling to countries that don’t have that, puts a lot of people at risk too, not just the people that live there but the travelers too and they travel and it’s just a cycle.
2.The reading was pretty clear and I understood but I did need to re-read some sections.
3.There were a few takeaways. One happened to be that countries are in the same or similar circumstances internally as others regarding inequalities and can be compared to each other like with Latin America and Asia. Another takeaway was how income inequality contributes to global inequality, and how increasing wealth at the top creates in a sense stagnation of wealth in lower income classes.
From my PowerPoint presentation, what isn’t clear? Any thoughts or comments you would like to share? The PowerPoint presentation was clear and straightforward about its main points.The only thing I am slightly still confused about is the 3 concepts but I will continue to look into it for further understanding. In regards to the rest of the content it was interesting and easy to understand. I think it is an abomonation to see how unequal the world is in its income distribution around the world especially in this point in time where we as a society have had the opportunity to see through the advancement of technology the inhumane levels of poverty and different lifestyles around the world. With globalization being so present in today’s society I would hope this would only help increase many countries around the world GDP. Infact we see that that is not the case. As mentioned, 1.75 percent of the population holds 20 percent of the world’s income that in itself speaks volumes about the level of global inequality we are experiencing.
From the reading what is not clear? The reading for this week was also clear to me, understanding different factors that play a part of today’s global inequality as well as how theories of the past have unfolded to be true or just a mere theory. This week’s reading specifically focuses on Marx’s ideas which demonstrates truth to it but above all proven astary. While Marx was an advocate for communism, society has taken preference towards capitalism and has resulted in high levels of inequality and a continental income division. In the reading we can see how impactful what part of the world you are born is to one’s financial life expectations. We can especially see high levels of inequality and exploitation of third world countries through the use of what id mentioned in the reading as IPF. Overall, the reading was clear and informative to understanding different aspects of today’s inequality.
Given Arjun Jayadev’s lecture, what are the main takeaways? What didn’t you understand? The lecture given by Arjun Jayadev was interesting and easy to understand. One of the maintakeaways was the enfices on laborshare and its position on inequality which according to Jayadev has declined from the 80s. This leads to the importance of ownership as a main source of income and profitability vs workers who make much less. Here we can see a turningpoint in capitalism and learn about other factors that partake in inequality in regards to earning inequality. It was interesting to hear about new obstacles in globalization such as borders as a relatively new barrier and factor to inequality which did not exist before.