"Instead, we should aim for equality of opportunity so that everyone can live up to their potential."
The problem is you can never achieve this whilst there is such large inequality. Wealthier people will send their children to private school (and I don't blame them for this, I would do the same). They will leave a large inheritance, they will use their connections to get their children good jobs. If they are wealthy enough they will buy political influence. The whole thing becomes self reinforcing.
Michael Sandell has an interesting book on the idea of meritocracy (which was a negative term when it was first coined).
Of course that's not to say we want to go to the other extreme but there are interesting questions to be asked about where we should aim the Gini coefficient.
Your point is well Mae but my classic counter examples are Canada and Switzerland. Both countries have relatively high income inequality (Switzerland’s income inequality is higher than Germany, for example), yet vertical social mobility is much higher in both countries than I their larger neighbours. In fact, if you want to live the American dream you should move to Canada.
The trick in both countries is that money doesn’t buy you access. Unlike in the UK or the US, private school and private universities are virtually unknown in Germany and Switzerland and the best universities and schools have very low or zero tuition fees. I studied at ETH Zürich which is generally ranked on or with MIT, Can ridge or Stanford, yet tuition fees are almost nil and the selection of students is only based on high school grades. And because high schools in Switzerland (or in my case Germany) are all public you cannot get a head start there either.
This kind of egalitarian public services goes through the entire system, whether we are talking about education, healthcare, or access to politics. Yes, there is lobbying and donations to influence politicians and their parties, but compared to the Uk or the US it is much much less influential. The result is a much higher ability for people (like me) from working class families to make it into middle class or upper class jobs and much less protection for rich kids.
While not perfect, countries like the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Canada do a much better job in generating equality of opportunity.
Germany has much higher income inequality compared to Switzerland (0.504 vs 0.409). In fact looking at the figures I would say Germany is an outlier, probably because of the effects of reunification.
Switzerland is lower than the UK, US and Canada, also lower than Denmark.
Social mobility is intertwined with inequality but that isn't a good reason to ignore inequality. It creates problems all on it's own. I'm not even convinced inequality is that beneficial for the haves. It's hard to be healthy when so many people around you are sick. Just ask any resident of California how they feel about stepping over used needles and human excrement.
Interesting, thanks for the correction. I’ll have to check eher I got the numbers I had in my head from. That inequality creates problems in the extreme case is undisputed. I would only dispute that i) in Europe we are at levels
Of inequality that are unsustainable or problematic and ii) that we should focus on income inequality as a way to reduce inequality in other areas like social mobility. I think there are more targeted approaches that work better.
"Instead, we should aim for equality of opportunity so that everyone can live up to their potential."
The problem is you can never achieve this whilst there is such large inequality. Wealthier people will send their children to private school (and I don't blame them for this, I would do the same). They will leave a large inheritance, they will use their connections to get their children good jobs. If they are wealthy enough they will buy political influence. The whole thing becomes self reinforcing.
Michael Sandell has an interesting book on the idea of meritocracy (which was a negative term when it was first coined).
Of course that's not to say we want to go to the other extreme but there are interesting questions to be asked about where we should aim the Gini coefficient.
Your point is well Mae but my classic counter examples are Canada and Switzerland. Both countries have relatively high income inequality (Switzerland’s income inequality is higher than Germany, for example), yet vertical social mobility is much higher in both countries than I their larger neighbours. In fact, if you want to live the American dream you should move to Canada.
The trick in both countries is that money doesn’t buy you access. Unlike in the UK or the US, private school and private universities are virtually unknown in Germany and Switzerland and the best universities and schools have very low or zero tuition fees. I studied at ETH Zürich which is generally ranked on or with MIT, Can ridge or Stanford, yet tuition fees are almost nil and the selection of students is only based on high school grades. And because high schools in Switzerland (or in my case Germany) are all public you cannot get a head start there either.
This kind of egalitarian public services goes through the entire system, whether we are talking about education, healthcare, or access to politics. Yes, there is lobbying and donations to influence politicians and their parties, but compared to the Uk or the US it is much much less influential. The result is a much higher ability for people (like me) from working class families to make it into middle class or upper class jobs and much less protection for rich kids.
While not perfect, countries like the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Canada do a much better job in generating equality of opportunity.
Germany has much higher income inequality compared to Switzerland (0.504 vs 0.409). In fact looking at the figures I would say Germany is an outlier, probably because of the effects of reunification.
Switzerland is lower than the UK, US and Canada, also lower than Denmark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient,_before_taxes_and_transfers
Social mobility is intertwined with inequality but that isn't a good reason to ignore inequality. It creates problems all on it's own. I'm not even convinced inequality is that beneficial for the haves. It's hard to be healthy when so many people around you are sick. Just ask any resident of California how they feel about stepping over used needles and human excrement.
Interesting, thanks for the correction. I’ll have to check eher I got the numbers I had in my head from. That inequality creates problems in the extreme case is undisputed. I would only dispute that i) in Europe we are at levels
Of inequality that are unsustainable or problematic and ii) that we should focus on income inequality as a way to reduce inequality in other areas like social mobility. I think there are more targeted approaches that work better.