Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

This is another example of caging the eyes to a nation when the network effects are global.

Worldwide inequality is falling, that is well documented. So the Keynesian prognostication about a life of desirable idleness based on re-investment of capital into local markets and automation was slowed because the capital found cheaper means than automation for growth.

So when you want to talk about social equality look at the impact global capitalism had on South Korea from 1950-today (as just one example).

View on HN

Where is the documentation for worldwide inequality falling? According to this page for instance GINI (a measure of inequality) has been rising in most countries since the 1980s: http://geo-mexico.com/?p=5044

The stat I've heard (in soundbite form; I don't have solid data for this) is that inequality within countries is rising across the board, but inequality between countries is falling. In other words, a rich Chinese person is now much richer than a poor Chinese person, a rich Mexican is now much richer than a poor Mexican, and a rich American is much richer than a poor American. However, a rich Chinese person or Mexican is now almost as rich as a rich American, while a poor American is now nearly as poor as a poor Mexican. And a rich Chinese person is significantly wealthier than a poor American, while it used to be that poor Americans were significantly wealthier than even wealthy Chinese.

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this, eg. the richest person in the world was Mexican from 2010-2013, and it also makes a lot of sense when you consider how globalization works.

Forgive me for asking, but are you suggesting this is a good thing?

I wasn't suggesting anything with my original post, merely stating a hypothesis about how the world is. It's possible to have a fact without a value judgment.

...but now that you ask, yes, I do think this is a good thing. It strikes me as a ridiculous injustice that the biggest single determinant of your lifetime income is the geographic location of your birth. Anything that makes that less arbitrary and more under your control will lead to a more just world, in my book.

Yes, that means that the economic system is chaotic at present and some people are getting left behind. However, it's far easier to pick up the skills needed to survive in today's economy than it was to move to the U.S. and get American citizenship in past generations.

In America social mobility is declining. Just another fact for this thread

How is it not? Or are you saying there is some sort of nationality inferiority that should drive the attainment of non-Americans below that of all others?

Over the past half century, China has brought the most people out of poverty in world history. These are the forces at play.

Depends on your worldview. Do you care about some kid in rural China, or your unborn grandchild?

A globalized economy will eventually pull everyone towards the mean. That's not good news for your descendants if you live in the west.

It's a dark moral place. It's also why realpolitik rules the day.

Inequality within a country is a far greater (inverse) predictor of your unborn grandchild's standard of living than worldwide inequality. There's enough wealth in the world to go around if evenly distributed.

Decreasing inequality between nations is surely a good thing. However, the increasing inequality inside nations is dangerous not just because of a sense of injustice - concentrated wealth implies concentrated power, and concentrated power tends to be at odds with a democratic model.

Also, China may have brought a lot of people out of poverty but they're doing so partially by sacrificing the health and in effect lives of hundred of millions of citizens with pollution way off the safety scale.

World Bank report 2012[1]: For the first time since this monitoring task began, the data indicate a decline in both the poverty rate and the number of poor in all six regions of the developing world

Kings College 2013[2]: In this paper we explore who have been the winners and losers from global growth since 1990

Economist Special Section 2012[3] - More nuanced and could offer a slightly alternative if generally positive example

[1] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVCALNET/Resources/Gl...

[2] http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/worldwide/initiatives/global...

[3] http://www.economist.com/node/21564414

Let's also talk about the impact of global capitalism on Nigeria (as a counter-example)[0].

0. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/afr...

Depends on your measure.

The Nigerian GDP is a hockey stick from 2000 to today while the GINI is mixed.

http://data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria

GDP isn't the only variable that matters.

I would think that computers will continue to increase social inequity, since now just a few people can run a multi-million dollar company.

Worldwide inequality has been rising continuously since the 1820s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#World_income_G...

What GINI misses is that the floor is rising across the board. So while internal to a country it may be spreading, between nations is shrinking: meaning a higher quality of life at the mean. See my other comment for documentation.

From your own link....

2002 0.71 2005 0.68

>Worldwide inequality is falling, that is well documented.

I was under the impression that this is mostly or solely due to extravagant growth pulling hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty, and that once you factor this out (which you should, since the Chinese are employing protectionist, state-capitalist policies rather than standard IMF/WTO-flavored neoliberal ones), global inequality has been rising.

>This is another example of caging the eyes to a nation when the network effects are global.

Nicely said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com