Reddit Reddit reviews The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger

We found 35 Reddit comments about The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Books
Economics
Economic Conditions
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
Bloomsbury Publishing PLC
Check price on Amazon

35 Reddit comments about The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger:

u/captainpuma · 217 pointsr/Documentaries

Income inequality is also heavily correlated with a whole host of social and public health problems, with significantly worse outcomes in more unequal countries, whether rich or poor.

EDIT: The graph comes from The Spirit Level and is an aggregate of these indexes:

  • Life expectancy
  • Math and literacy
  • Infant mortality
  • Homicides
  • Imprisonment
  • Teenage births
  • Trust
  • Obesity
  • Mental illness, including drug & alcohol addiction
  • Social mobility
u/warwick607 · 126 pointsr/science

Just wanted to highlight the source at the bottom of the graph. The Spirit Level is an excellent book for those interested in reading about the myriad amount of social problems associated with increasing inequality.

What's even more interesting is that large amounts of inequality hurt all socio-economic classes, from those at the very bottom all the way to the top 1%. To quote from The Spirit Level:

>p.g. 84

>We also found that living in a more equal place benefited everybody, not just the poor. It's worth repeating that health disparities are not simply a contrast between the ill-health of the poor and the better health of everybody else. Instead, they run right across society so that even the reasonably well-off have shorter lives than the very rich. Likewise, the benefits of greater equality spread right across society, improving health for everyone - not just those at the bottom. In other words, at almost any level of income, it's better to live in a more equal place.

u/alcalde · 30 pointsr/Enough_Sanders_Spam

Is "income inequality" a new way of saying "poverty"? Because I believe poverty is a real issue and every election cycle I gripe that it's now been over 20 years since the topic of homelessness came up in a Presidential debate. But the term "income inequality" carries the connotation that incomes are supposed to be equal for everyone, and that's a lot harder idea to get behind.

> , but for Bernie to be posting about it now just shows his true colors.

White. :-)

There was a book originally published in the UK called "The Spirit Level", summing up 30 years of research into inequality and purporting to demonstrate the significant benefits to society when things are more equal. As soon as Bernie started running I expected The Spirit Level to be brought up again and again as it's really the defining work on the topic.

As the weeks wore on I was surprised to note Bernie never brought it up. I read Sanders interviews and again, not only no mention but no mention of any of the research covered in the book at all. It finally dawned on me... Oh my God, he's never even read the book! That's when I started looking into his background. I imagined he had been an economics professor in a tweed jacket for 30 years at some rural Vermont college before entering politics. Instead, I discovered he reached his political conclusions circa the age of 18 after being exposed to Marx in college and apparently never questioned or expanded on those early beliefs. I realized his conclusions were determined by ideology, not investigation. Even if he was right about anything, it was by accident (much the same as Trump). That's when I got on the anti-Sanders bandwagon, relatively early on.

u/airbridge-atl · 24 pointsr/newzealand

The simple answer is that a better distribution is significantly less unequal than 1/10th = 50%+ of wealth.

There is a really large base of empirical data that shows a clear trend that more unequal societies have diminishing returns on aspects of quality of life for EVERYONE including the most wealthy and their lifespan (See: https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411 )

Inequality is associated less societal trust, empathy, effectiveness of social institutions and social services. Rich people in super unequal places have to spend money on security services and other things that rich people in places with well funded, distributed transport and social services etc. don't have to deal with.

u/JohnnyBeagle · 14 pointsr/worldpolitics

I'm reading The Spirit Level at the moment.

It is a well-established fact that in rich societies the poor have shorter lives and suffer more from almost every social problem. The Spirit Level, based on thirty years of research, takes this truth a step further. One common factor links the healthiest and happiest societies: the degree of equality among their members. Further, more unequal societies are bad for everyone within them-the rich and middle class as well as the poor.

u/zorno · 13 pointsr/Parenting

IMO the higher the income gap gets, the more people will act like this. There is a whole book on this subject, and how it affects people.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies/dp/1608193411

u/CesarShackleston · 10 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

Great post.

Highly recommended.

Is it possible that hierarchy itself causes massive social dysfunction? This was Bakunin's argument. He called it the "power principle." A similar argument is made in The Spirit Level.

Bakunin didn't reject the idea of hierarchy based on merit, but claimed that it should never be institutionalized. He and Kropotkin pointed out -- rightly -- that in "primitive" societies, hierarchies come and go. Someone is better at something? Great, let he or she take charge. But the moment that individual tries to hoard wealth or exercise power over others, we have a problem.

u/Canredd · 9 pointsr/MensRights

> Give everyone shit, or give nobody shit, or you breed resentment.

This is true. We have lived in extremely egalitarian societies for about 95 percent of our history, so it's not surprising at all that human beings become extremely dysfunctional in hierarchical/unequal societies. The more inequality the more dysfunction. More unequal societies fare worse on every single quality of life indicator.

The right is fighting biology, essentially, a doomed mission that will probably end in extinction. The modern "left" -- also steered by billionaire psychopaths -- is no better, as they also support extreme hierarchy. Though the "left" at least talks about class and war, they reduce the most important issues to an afterthought, and focus relentlessly on ID politics.

u/cathartis · 7 pointsr/lostgeneration

I'm not precisely sure about which aspect of the problem you want to learn about, but The Spirit Level is a good introduction to the effects of inequality, whilst Capital in the twenty-first century discusses why inequality is growing.

u/Emowomble · 6 pointsr/TrueReddit

Not only is inequality bad for people at the bottom of society; its also, surprisingly, bad for the people at the top too. The Spirit Level from 2011, lays this out in excruciating detail showing that for every conceivable metric of societal well being, more equal societies are better than than less equal ones. It does this by comparing both OECD countries and comparing between US states.

u/InDissent · 5 pointsr/samharris

The linked graph shows the negative correlation between economic inequality and societal health in general. I was disappointed that in the Frum and Sullivan talk, when they talked about how life expectancy had been decreasing in the US, they didn't even mention how when comparing cross culturally, income inequality predicts lower life expectancy.

Dr. Richard Wilkinson would be an amazing guest

u/Fensterbrat · 4 pointsr/newzealand

I have read the book published by the scientists who gave the TED talk I linked, which is probably the best-known book on this subject. In the introduction they dealt with the question of causality at length. If you are truly interested in the subject matter then I would highly recommend giving it a read.

E: Also note that this discussion is about inequality, not poverty. The two are not synonymous. Incidentally, an interesting feature of inequality is that its negative impacts are not confined to the poor but reach right across society.

u/ronroyal · 3 pointsr/korea

More equal societies generally have lower drug use and mental health problems, higher life expectancy and better overall health, lower rates of obesity, better educational performance, lower teenage pregnancy, less violence, lower rates of incarceration, higher rates of recycling etc.

The Spirit Level by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson covers these issues and more.

u/LucifersHammerr · 3 pointsr/MensRights

> Okay, but it'd be much worse under socialism. Men would not be able to opt out.

They are not really able to "opt out" at present. Unless you want to go live in shack in the woods. I don't see why socialism would make that issue better or worse.

>No society has ever actually been completely equal men will always be competing and hypergamy will always exist to select the winners.

About 97% of our history was spent in hunter-gatherer bands where the defining ethos was egalitarianism. More equal societies are simply far healthier by all indicators. Which makes sense, since that was how we evolved.

Less inequality = less hypergamy.

>This is the most socialistic than America has ever been in

Not by a long shot. The most socialistic period in American history was the 1950's: huge taxes on the rich, huge job programs for men, strong labor unions etc.

>At the turn of the 20th century, we were ruthlessly capitalistic and so women had to act better.

Women had to act better because they didn't yet have reliable birth control and because it was a pre-feminist society. However the average man had few rights. Most men lived as virtual slaves in company towns.

u/double_the_bass · 2 pointsr/politicalfactchecking

Here's one study on that issue: The Spirit Level

u/nicmos · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

>So one of my core believes is all people should have as much freedom as possible. Part of freedom is keeping the product of your labor. When we tax income, we are taxing labor.

and what is the product of the labor of Wall Street traders?

what is the product of the labor of cigarette makers?

what is the product of the labor of a mining company whose runoff pollutes the river and kills the fish that people downstream depend on for their livelihood or survival?

should they be able to keep the product of their labor and be free?

this is why economists, after much reluctance, now study (in their parlance) externalities.

>I would argue that the best result is achieved when individuals making choices for themselves is the clearest route to "best result for society", where society really means the sum total desires of the individuals in society.

the term society is not interchangeable with the sum total of individuals' behavior. society is an emergent construct with emergent properties. for example: how do people who have less feel about those who have more (regardless of whether the rich people really do work harder, or whether they are lucky)? so the poor start killing the rich people. or the poor people rise up and overthrow the social structure, which might be detrimental to everyone temporarily, but good in the long run. that is an oversimplified argument, but the point is this: people live in a society, and how that society functions is not just a sum of how every individual behaves. so we need to analyze how successful a society is, and how it can achieve that. it is ultimately defined in terms of concrete outcomes for people, to be sure. but you can't understand the world around you if you just want to reduce everything to individuals.

this is likely connected to why you value freedom more than equality. that and your physiology, which determines which outcomes you value more than others.

I would argue that the way you feel isn't any less valid than they a lot of others around here feel, but ultimately it will lead to worse outcomes. driven in some sense by these externalities, and by very foreseeable outcomes like social discontent and environmental destruction. personally I don't want to see those worse outcomes. I think that more equality will lead to better outcomes. please read The Spirit Level because it has lots of data on how equality affects societal outcomes.

u/ebriose · 2 pointsr/AskALiberal

Because human beings are not Pareto efficient. This book summarizes a lot of research over multiple social indicators that people are significantly better off in a less unequal society, even if their absolute level of wealth is lower.

u/specter-ssrp · 2 pointsr/YangForPresidentHQ

As one of those progressive jerkoffs (and big time Yang supporter & phone banker), the concern about the 1% is an entirely data driven perspective. Two points.

First, political science research has consistently shown that elite economic interests consistently suppress democratic outcomes, to the point that some have even labeled America as an oligarchy: see Gilens https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf and of course Pikkety https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller&ved=2ahUKEwihmIzyvuDkAhUSjq0KHfR9C5oQFjAWegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw26KCDNjdkHZHP9l5l4QMSo&ampcf=1

Second, work by Payne, Wilkinson & Pickett, and other researchers has also shown that inequality, specifically - NOT just the existence of poverty or a sufficient economic floor, but there mere existence of deep socioeconomic differences - is a primary driver of social dysfunction: see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/opinion/sunday/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-fairness.html and https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411/ref=asc_df_1608193411/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312111868709&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=10151662887925155100&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010330&hvtargid=pla-435491454448&psc=1

Democracy Dollars and the FD will go a long ways toward combating these political dynamics, but they will remain concerning in the long term. As an anarchist, I believe it is any citizen's right to secede from a nation that they no longer wish to be a part of. OTOH, as a scientist well-informed on the social dysfunction that is created by large socioeconomic inequality, the most stable societies are clearly those with the lowest inequality, which is the kind of society that I want to be a part of (even if it means me & you can't be billionaires).

Hope that sheds a little light on our perspective.

u/BecomingFree · 1 pointr/Brazil

I'll keep it short, since I have other things to do.

  1. As you should know if you read the links, the brochure is just a summarization, (made by third parties), of the detailed work contained in this book.
  2. Meanwhile, your "real data" still says nothing that actually contradicts what I wrote.

    Edit:

    > ...so it makes no sense to say that the income equality is more beneficial than economic development.

    Again, that's not the assertion! I'll try to say it for the last time. The claim is that income equality is more beneficial than further economic development specifically for the rich countries. Notice the word "further". In other words: if we take the countries that are already rich, from now on they will benefit much more from increases in equality than increases in GDP. (The same is not true for poor countries. Poor countries still need both: more growth and more equality).
u/live_free · 1 pointr/CombatFootage

> yet still i was referring more to the abject poverty and deplorable conditions of the proletariat. which i think has still improved considerably

Understood. The problem with comparing that is any comparison is completely arbitrary. Systemic problems arise from vast inequalities, or as Smith said Social Distance, not from the relative comparative condition of the bottom 20% in 2010 in contrast to, say, 1700. Because at that point what 'good', 'prosperous', and 'healthy' even mean become utterly meaningless. I'm sure Genghis Khan would've considered having a refrigerator or cellphone awesome; doesn't mean he didn't live as a king.

--

I'm not a huge fan of this book, but will recommenced it anyway. It presents some complex subjects in simple terms, sometimes to its detriment. But all-in-all it will give you a good understanding, if only to serve as a jumping off point, of the relationship between vast inequalities and social health.

--

Furthermore large disparities are bad for the economy anyway. If the majority of citizens cannot afford cars, homes, or even take-out, the demand for consumer goods falls, decreasing supply, and resulting in further unemployment.

u/7uaGetzi · 1 pointr/unitedkingdom

    The book The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger argues, as do other works, that inequality itself very often tends to produce harms.

    Indeed, that book found the following. Take someone, call her Sarah, who is near the economic bottom of a rich society. Compare her to someone, call him Omar, who is near the top of a much poorer society, and has, in absolute terms, much less money than Sarah. In many ways, Omar has a better life than Sarah, the book found. I think.

EDIT: Also, and if I may ask this despite not really providing any data myself, do you have some figures or sources for your claim that 'poverty levels decreased significantly'?

u/sjh5050 · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

Wilkinson & Pickett's The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger is written by two British social epidemiologists who talk about the social and individual effects of inequality globally based on international research, and it's wonderful. Here's a link if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies/dp/1608193411

u/Ooboga · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

There may be some pointers here, even though I have not read it myself.

I suggest you take a loot at Wilkinson's work on inequality. Work is based on UN data, and also separate date from the US states. Trust is for instance something that is larger in equal societies. Health seems to be better also for rich people in equal societies.

One good direction into their (Kate Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson) work is a book called The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Wilkinson has, however, held a TED talk, and also a 90 minute talk on the subject.

Their conclusion is that it matters, on so many levels. Then again, people on the right side of the isle disagree.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/videos

Japan has the lowest inequality between wages in the world. P.S. I would recommend The Spirit Level if you're interested in the arguments/evidence as to why financial egalitarianism is a better system.

u/Sitnalta · 1 pointr/skeptic

I don't think there is any single right answer to that. Although I give a lot of weight to Marx's analysis of capitalism and his musings on human nature and alienation, I disagree with his proposed solutions. I think class war and revolution are outmoded in the modern world and in the past have lead to corrupt, domineering and incompetent political parties.

I think the answer is still out there and it is up to us to find it. My own two cents would be that a re-envisioning of democracy would be the best way forward: a situation where policies and economies are controlled by the people rather than capitalists and political parties. A de-centralised, participatory democracy. This won't always lead to socialist policies, but I think over time the human species would be able to find its balance, its equilibrium, according to its own will and nature, as opposed to being dictated to from above by rigid ideologies, parties, privately owned media, corporations, economic forces, religions and so on. But that's just my view. If I had the answers I wouldn't be sitting around typing shit on Reddit.

Regardless of how we get there, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that equality is the most suitable environment for human beings: I strongly recommend this book if you've not read it.

u/itsthenewdan · 1 pointr/politics

I'll give you a reluctant upvote, because while I agree with every policy suggestion you have, we'd also do better as a society in most measures of well-being (polled happiness, crime rates, children's behavioral problems, drug addiction rates, mortality, etc.) if we merely enacted policy that sought to reduce the amount of economic inequality. There's growing evidence to support this... I'm reading about it right now in a book called The Spirit Level.

The easiest way to reduce economic inequality is to return to highly progressive taxation (like we used to have when we rebounded from the Great Depression), and to use the extra revenue to provide social services (including those you mentioned, like healthcare and education). My point is that adding the highly progressive taxation part improves the outcome.

u/Qwill2 · 1 pointr/SocialDemocracy
u/fcburdman · 1 pointr/politicsdebate

https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411

Pick up this book if you like reading, the economy, ethics, any combination of the former. In essence, the book says how greater equality makes societies stronger. In ALL aspects, culturally, mentally, AND economically. It basically discusses how with the ever increasing wage gape in our society, there has been a paralleled increasing inequality. And the moral implications, therefore, of an economic system should be to promote equality.

No, it is not a book that argues in favor of wealth distribution or any other sort of socialist undertones one may have take away from what I just described. The book is supported by decades of research and statistics that support a clear message: Inequality and the economy are indisputably and intricately linked. Improve one. Improve the other.

u/Astamir · 1 pointr/funny

I think working is an important experience, and I'm glad it brought positive things to you. Your post was an interesting read. But yeah, I was mainly referring to the macroeconomics of it.

In an ideal world with extremely low unemployment rates, it'd be excellent for everyone to at least have a small part-time job during their studies, if only for the experience of working 8 hours shifts and extra income. But right now, it's having an impact on everyone.

I'm from Quebec, where we had a major debate on rising tuition costs 2 years ago, and I was baffled to see a massive amount of low-wage workers screaming at the "entitled students" to suck it up and accept the higher tuition, and work their way like everyone else did. They never realized that the students would compete with them for low-wage jobs, and it'd make nearly everyone worse off.

Your comment on the respect for tradesmen is interesting, and I would direct you to Richard Wilkinson's TED Talk and even his book, which is absolutely a must-read for anyone ever I think, as far as social sciences go. Basically, the current research suggests that socioeconomic inequality increases tension between members of different classes/education levels and tends to push people to try really hard not to be associated with "lower classes". Conspicuous consumption and disdain for "lessers" are byproducts of that.

Finally, your comment on the negative impact on your grades I can 100% relate to. I've always been at the top of my classes without working very hard, while maintaining massive interest in the topic we saw (mainly urbanism and economics), and I saw how different the experience was for people around me who worked during their studies. I don't think my experience was different mostly because I'm smarter, but because I managed to make sure I had enough time and mental energy to actually spend it on what was important at the time; understanding my scientific field. The semesters when I worked while studying, I noticed I was less interested and way more stressed, so I learned a lot less. It's all about balance I guess.

u/steve_z · 1 pointr/socialism

Amazon.com link to book here

I have nothing to do with the project, but I am interested in how both the book and, presumably, the film, delve into the effects of inequality on the psyche on both micro and macro levels.

u/joshbuddy · -2 pointsr/Libertarian

A couple of things. It seems like income inequality is a huge problem because it has a deleterious effect on society. I thought The Spirit Level (http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies/dp/1608193411) presented good evidence for that because of the broad range of measures they showed inequality effects.

Also, I mean, Sanders might say socialist, but he's really talking about social democracy, so Kasparov's argument seems like a giant straw man of misunderstanding. And there are also lots of examples of functioning social democracies.

u/vamosatumadre · -5 pointsr/holdmyfries

All else being equal, the obese contribute more to income inequality, which is the largest cause of hunger worldwide. Read this book, it cites sources: https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411