Social Question for Verka (little Reds content)

by bbjones on May 8, 2008 11:15 PM EDT

Sorry for sending this to everyone; I couldn't figure out how to send it directly to Verka. That being said, I'd love to hear anyone else's input on this.

Verka, I don't understand exactly what you are doing, but I think it's enough to say that you are working for social justice -- that is, a kind of equality -- for disadvantaged folks in the Latin Caribbean. First off: Good for you, and thanks!

Now, my question. I've often wondered whether the much-discussed inequality of income is as important as the absolute level of income. That is, which is better: to have everyone get nearly equal income, or to have a bigger spread, but have the median be higher?

Of course, you have to define what "better" is. But for these purposes, I think something like "satisfaction," "economic stress-level," or "contentment" might be the right definition.

I can answer this question for myself. I'm doing reasonably well --don't have to worry about what I'm going to eat, don't have to worry too much about paying the mortgage. It doesn't bother me a bit that Griffey's option year alone would bring him over 100x my income. Because I'm content with what I've got, I don't care what he gets.

This makes me wonder if we shouldn't focus on raising "the bottom," and not worry about the disparity, except secondarily insofar as the megaincomes actively screw the poor. If we could raise the standard of living of the 5th percentile in income in each country -- get it up to the point that the 5th percentile lives a decent life, maybe it doesn't matter what the 99th percentile is making.

So, Verka -- in your experience, which would make people more content? Reducing the disparity, even if that means everyone is poor, or boosting the 5th percentile, even if some people are making 100x or 1000x that amount?

1 recs | Comment 4 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Neither, both... inventemos!

First, let me clarify again what I am doing. I am working with an international grassroots organizing school based out of Santo Domingo called Justicia Global. I do not consider myself to be “working for social justice for disadvantaged folks in the Latin Caribbean.” On the contrary, I consider myself to be working for social justice for everyone, everywhere. I happen to be in the Dominican Republic right now because here is where I have found a community of organizers breathing another, more just world into life on a daily basis. I am also doing this work because it brings me great personal joy. I have never been more content with who I am than since I have been here.

Now to the question: make everyone equal even if it means everyone has less, or make everyone more wealthy even if that means that economic disparity still exists?

What do you think? What makes you content? What kind of world do you want to build? What are you willing to do to build that world? How do you think about the stuff you have and would you be willing to share your resources with others who do not have them?

This is our reality, what do we want to do with it together?

Tanzen!

by Verka Serduchka on May 9, 2008 11:31 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

My take

I think it only works if you have both.

In “old” China, everyone except the most powerful Communist bosses was hideously poor; obviously, that wasn’t good. Now, many more people are making at least some money, but the poorest are still hideously poor because the rich drive up the prices on everything.

So the poorest must have the means to make more money, but for it to actually benefit society the rich can’t stay as far ahead. What’s more, if you do make this work, the entire economy will grow pretty rapidly, pulling everyone along (think the USA after WWII). Allowing the huge disparities leads to the US late 1800’s, or early (fun fact: income disparity in the US is at its greatest since those golden robber baron days) – no matter how much money the top 1% has, it cannot compare to the purchasing power of the middle 90%, or overcome a drop in purchasing by that same group.

This is at odds with the popular sentiment that “rising tides raise all boats” – that if there is more money, everyone will benefit. Unfortunately those that use this phrase want a few boats (the top 1% in income) to pull up the tide, which we know doesn’t work. If I make an extra $1000, I’m going to spend it on something (probably not a necessity, but it will be spent). My boss already has just about everything; when a guy makes $300k+/yr, what’s an extra $1000 to him? He’s either going to save it (which doesn’t help the economy), or overpay for something (which causes inflation, screwing the lowest earners).

Often wrong, never uncertain.

by sidnancy on May 9, 2008 2:01 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

here in the ol' US of A

I think that here in the States, most people don’t mind if 1% of the richy rich make scads of money. I think the key is that most everyone knows someone who is doing better than they are (thus giving hope—if Slyde can do it, so can I!) but not everyone they know is doing better than they are. Well, and the other key is that if people have cable TV, a car they like, and a decent roof over their heads they are pretty happy.

Verka, what do you find in the Dominican? I’m sure that the median income there would be basically homeless in the SF Bay Area where I live. Is that person happier in the Dominican because everyone else is poor (i.e., little disparity) or also unhappy because they have trouble buying enough food to eat?

by bbjones on May 10, 2008 1:18 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Community.

More than anything else, I have found community in the DR. Take today for example. I spent most of the day cookin with a few other organization members in preparation for hosting a group of community leaders we were meeting with from out in the campo. Joy for me is sharing, laughing, creating together with other people- whether food, music, conversation, baseball, or transformative social change (which can include all of the above).

Not sure how to answer the question about the connections between poverty and happiness, so I will just make a few comments about poverty and disparity. First of all, disparitiy exists here. The kids in rags washing the lexus at the traffic light, or the guy digging through my trash outside my window as I type this. Like most places, there are a small number of people with a lot, and a large number of people with a little.

Second of all, poverty is a complex thing that comes in many different shapes and sizes. Some of our organizational members are from rural communities outside of the capital. By all economic and material measurements they would be considered deeply impoverished- a concrete 3-4 room house with a tin roof, a television, maybe a fridge. But they are farmers, so there wealth lies in their land and their cultivating knowledge. As long as they have that, and a little help from the weather, they will have food on their tables.

In the city, poverty is a bit different. Today, a homeless man walked into our organizational local and asked for food. His plight was a lot worse because he had neither the means to feed himself nor a social/family structure to support him.

So, here in this example we have 2 very different types of poverty. It is not that rural poverty is a cakewalk. Health, education, violence, alcoholism, are all major issues in rural communities here. But those impovershed in the rural areas, if they are still connected to land, have most of their basic needs met. In the city, well, begging and trash scavenging many people alive.

And we have not even begun to talk about the working urban poor, folks that work everyday in factories, in construction, or selling food, phone cards, cell phone chargers, coloring books, etc on the street.

In my experience, spending quality time with other people makes people happy. Poverty can make that more difficult, but so can wealth.

Tanzen!

by Verka Serduchka on May 10, 2008 11:48 PM EDT up reply reply 1 recs