RE: Help with a Minimum Wage Model

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 21:44:15 MDT

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: (ESS)"

    Damien S. writes

    > > I've never seen a society getting richer that got (internally)
    > > worse. I'd rather a country be run by rich hoodlums that by
    >
    > Define "internally worse".

    Sorry, I meant worsened morals, more crime, less "civilized".

    > That rapid growth of GDP seems correlated with increasing
    > inequality seems well-accepted (debate is over how much the
    > inequality matters.)

    Yes. The most that the inequality matters, IMO, is
    the degree to which people exhibit unhelpful emotions,
    mainly antagonistic envy and resentment.

    > The US has kept on getting richer over the last few
    > decades, but income in the bottom segment has fallen
    > in absolute terms (module [modulo] the existence of
    > stuff which couldn't be bought before... but food and
    > housing are basics.)

    I recall that you may be right about the absolute status
    of a certain segment near the bottom, but don't have any
    evidence at hand. Certainly if people are unwilling to
    move, life can become more inhospitable in certain areas.

    Moreover, a number of bad laws have worsened the prospects
    of the poor, and have increased inequality. Zoning ordinances
    are now used to prevent growth and thus to cordon off "good"
    areas so that poorer people cannot move there. Thus over time
    cities become less homogeneous compared to, say, 1900.

    > Britain got richer in the enclosure movement, with tenants
    > being kicked off the land for sheep farming; the tenants
    > would probably have words about it not getting internally worse.

    The land was communally owned, not privately, and it was becoming
    a worse disaster each year for the people living there (they were
    not tenants as such, yet). This, of course, is what is referred
    to as "the tragedy of the commons". When the land became privately
    owned, it turned out not to be theirs. (Surprise, surprise---
    zoning in the 18th century---the rich get to exclude the poor.)
    In any case, the conditions in the cities to which they moved,
    as atrocious as they are to us, were probably better than the
    horrific conditions from which they came.

    Lee
     



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 21:53:43 MDT