Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 82

Thread: OECD report: Inequality highest in 30 years, trickle-down has failed

  1. #1

    Default OECD report: Inequality highest in 30 years, trickle-down has failed

    Society: Governments must tackle record gap between rich and poor, says OECD

    05/11/2911 - The gap between rich and poor in OECD countries has reached its highest level for over over 30 years, and governments must act quickly to tackle inequality, according to a new OECD report.

    Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising” finds that the average income of the richest 10% is now about nine times that of the poorest 10 % across the OECD.


    The income gap has risen even in traditionally egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, from 5 to 1 in the 1980s to 6 to 1 today. The gap is 10 to 1 in Italy, Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom, and higher still, at 14 to 1 in Israel, Turkey and the United States.

    In Chile and Mexico, the incomes of the richest are still more than 25 times those of the poorest, the highest in the OECD, but have finally started dropping.

    Income inequality is much higher in some major emerging economies outside the OECD area. At 50 to 1, Brazil's income gap remains much higher than in many other countries, although it has been falling significantly over the past decade.



    Launching the report in Paris, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurr*a said “The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries. This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that greater inequality fosters greater social mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise.”

    The main driver behind rising income gaps has been greater inequality in wages and salaries, as the high-skilled have benefitted more from technological progress than the low-skilled. Reforms to boost competition and to make labour markets more adaptable, for example by promoting part-time work or more flexible hours, have promoted productivity and brought more people into work, especially women and low-paid workers. But the rise in part-time and low-paid work also extended the wage gap.


    Tax and benefit systems play a major role in reducing market-driven inequality, but have become less effective at redistributing income since the mid-1990s. The main reason lies on the benefits side: benefits levels fell in nearly all OECD countries, eligibility rules were tightened to contain spending on social protection, and transfers to the poorest failed to keep pace with earnings growth.


    As a result, the benefit system in most countries has become less effective in reducing inequalities over the past 15 years.

    Another factor has been a cut in top tax rates for high-earners.


    “There is nothing inevitable about high and growing inequalities,” said Mr Gurr*a. “Our report clearly indicates that upskilling of the workforce is by far the most powerful instrument to counter rising income inequality. The investment in people must begin in early childhood and be followed through into formal education and work.”

    The OECD underlines the need for governments to review their tax systems to ensure that wealthier individuals contribute their fair share of the tax burden. This can be achieved by raising marginal tax rates on the rich but also improving tax compliance, eliminating tax deductions, and reassessing the role of taxes in all forms of property and wealth, the report says.


    The actual document (I don't know how many of you have access to it) is about 400 pages so obviously I haven't had time to go through it, but I thought this might serve as a starter for an interesting conversation (read: vicious flame war between ideological divides).

    As if the unravelling financial crisis weren't enough to cause societal instability, chaos and volatility, rising inequality has historically meant the same thing, occasionally leading into riots and even rebellions. Something's gotta give, or will the West move back away from crypto-fascism towards the real deal?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  2. #2
    I think there's a good argument to be made that large amounts of inequality can be bad for a society, but I do NOT think that rising income inequality alone is a proof that so-called 'trickle down' theories are wrong. So what if the richest have gotten richer? If normal people are better off than before, you have to show a counterfactual where supply-side theories haven't been applied and the regular joe schmoe is worse off.

  3. #3
    Trickle-down theory has nothing to do with the notion that people will earn equal incomes. That is a straw man.

    I couldn't care less if inequality spreads even more so long as overall everyone gets better off. Given a choice between two scenarios, one where I am impoverished and starving - but the formerly rich as well as everybody else are now universally also impoverished and starving - and an alternative where I, my family, friends, the rest of society are healthier, economically stronger etc but some people are totally and utterly filthy rich then I prefer the second.

    I wouldn't do this very often but to agree and quote former Labour MP and minister from the last government Peter Mandelson "we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich".
    The main driver behind rising income gaps has been greater inequality in wages and salaries, as the high-skilled have benefitted more from technological progress than the low-skilled.
    Good! I paid attention at school, worked hard, read regularly, did my homework, revision etc - I went to university, did the same. Why should the unskilled be benefiting? Why should people who at school were more interested in bunking school, bullying nerds, smoking behind the bike shed (age 10) be benefiting?
    transfers to the poorest failed to keep pace with earnings growth.
    Why should it? Seriously: Why should it?

    Yes the poorest should not be starving in the streets, I'm quite prepared and happy to have a welfare state to provide a safety net for all. But why should the benefits of better iPods etc from earnings growth be included in that? If you want to benefit from earnings growth get a job. Or an education then a job.
    the benefit system in most countries has become less effective in reducing inequalities over the past 15 years.
    Again, so what? That shouldn't be its job.

  4. #4
    Quite, wealth (like employment) is not a zero sum game.

  5. #5
    Just to be clear, I've just added in a load of edits (the three quotes and responses to quotes) so I imagine wiggin's above reply was to my first three paragraphs before the quotes.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Given a choice between two scenarios, one where I am impoverished and starving - but the formerly rich as well as everybody else are now universally also impoverished and starving - and an alternative where I, my family, friends, the rest of society are healthier, economically stronger etc but some people are totally and utterly filthy rich then I prefer the second.
    Those are not the options on the table.
    Good! I paid attention at school, worked hard, read regularly, did my homework, revision etc - I went to university, did the same. Why should the unskilled be benefiting? Why should people who at school were more interested in bunking school, bullying nerds, smoking behind the bike shed (age 10) be benefiting?
    You are disregarding that some have more talent for learning and some don't. Unskilled still doesn't mean: did not want to put in the effort.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    If you want to benefit from earnings growth get a job. Or an education then a job.
    greater inequality in wages and salaries
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    Those are not the options on the table.
    Are they not? What are the options?

    Either way its irrelevant to the point and just an allegory. The point is that trickle-down's success or failure can not and should not be measured in income inequality. Trickle down or supply-side economics is about growing the pie bigger, not about how many slices we all get.
    You are disregarding that some have more talent for learning and some don't. Unskilled still doesn't mean: did not want to put in the effort.
    No but it largely does. For the small number of special cases then that's different, I think we should help the disabled and have done much charitable work personally with the Special Olympics. Though I suspect that's not quite what you were thinking of. Most people can learn something if they put their mind to it. Either way, those who have learnt a skill should be able to put it to use, that it meritocratic.
    greater inequality in wages and salaries
    Was regarding the point on skills. The point on welfare was not to do with that.

    For the record: I hope the gap between skilled and unskilled continues to widen. I want those who put in the effort to learn to be rewarded for their efforts (and often significant cost and sacrifice).

  8. #8
    Fuck it. Bailing out.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    Saying the choice is between all out starvation and everyone being better off are not the options available to us.
    You want to be more specific than that? What are the options and counter-factuals available to us?
    The disabled. Jesus Christ. Let me put it this way, is someone who had a knack for working with tools less skilled than someone who has a knack for leading a company?
    No. I'd class someone who has a knack of working with tools skilled. They're measured that way too. A plumber, an electrician, a mechanic etc can all be classes as skilled labour.
    You are portraying this as a: skilled, laborious and successful vs unskilled, lazy (lazier) and failing. That's not what this is about.
    Yes it is.
    I see. We can all be CEO's if we just put the effort in.
    Who said CEO? Are the only options unskilled or CEO?
    Christ in a bathtub.
    Well I put it as clear and succinctly as I could. Got nothing serious to say in response?

  10. #10
    Sorry mate, I felt this heading towards a dead end. Hoped I was in time with the edit before you put in the effort.

    Alas poor Yorick ...
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  11. #11
    So I'll take it as a no to my question then, you don't want to have a serious discussion.

  12. #12
    Dude, don't be an asshole.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  13. #13
    So, er, does great income inequality have negative effects? Anyone?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  14. #14
    Does it have positive ones?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    So, er, does great income inequality have negative effects? Anyone?
    I'm sure it does. But then, I'm also sure that universal income parity would also have negative effects.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #16
    I'm not sure anyone wants a gini coefficient of either 0 or 1.

    Well, maybe some people do, but let's not worry about them too much.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Good! I paid attention at school, worked hard, read regularly, did my homework, revision etc - I went to university, did the same. Why should the unskilled be benefiting? Why should people who at school were more interested in bunking school, bullying nerds, smoking behind the bike shed (age 10) be benefiting?
    I paid attention in school, worked hard, read regularly, did my homework, I went to university...twice, once for undergrad, graduating in 3.5 years instead of 4 with a 3.7 GPA and then again for a Masters of Science Degree from NYU, graduating again with a 3.7 GPA. After being laid off due to the current recession cutting the income of the small business I worked for, I now get to enjoy the perks of working in retail, while still having to pay off all of that wonderful education and hard work I applied myself to.

    Why should the unskilled benefit? Because a lot of them are not as you describe them. I've encountered several people working at the same store as myself who have Masters degrees. Others are women who decided to become mothers, and the work hours of the profession they originally chose to go to college for (as in not a 9 - 5 job) can no longer be done concurrently with the hours required to be a mother. Or they are like myself and have taken to doing this work because they've been laid off for reasons wholly unrelated to how "productive" a worker they were at their prior job. Your assessment of the situation is wholly ignorant.

    Besides that, working in retail is definitely more difficult than the actual professional job I had in my field. That job, the pay was better, the work was enjoyable, and the clients we did work for didn't treat us like robots, idiots, or as if they are better than us. Retail? The pay is not great, the work is not enjoyable at all, it is far more tiring since it involves far more physical labor, and our clients/customers do treat us like robots, idiots, or as if they are better than us. I'd have to say dealing with all of this is a skill unto itself.

    Why should it? Seriously: Why should it?

    Yes the poorest should not be starving in the streets, I'm quite prepared and happy to have a welfare state to provide a safety net for all. But why should the benefits of better iPods etc from earnings growth be included in that? If you want to benefit from earnings growth get a job. Or an education then a job.
    Did this. So have many others. You're stereotyping again.
    . . .

  18. #18
    You have also said you aren't willing to move to an area more conducive to your career. Might that also play a role in your situation? Hell, what you majored in can easily be done freelance if you've got the ability.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    So, er, does great income inequality have negative effects? Anyone?
    Inequality in and of itself? Mainly jealousy and all the consequences that has. Which is potentially quite pernicious.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Does it have positive ones?
    Yes indeed. The greater the inequality the greater the incentive to do what is required to be successful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I paid attention in school, worked hard, read regularly, did my homework, I went to university...twice, once for undergrad, graduating in 3.5 years instead of 4 with a 3.7 GPA and then again for a Masters of Science Degree from NYU, graduating again with a 3.7 GPA. After being laid off due to the current recession cutting the income of the small business I worked for, I now get to enjoy the perks of working in retail, while still having to pay off all of that wonderful education and hard work I applied myself to.
    Good for you, you've got another job and can try again. Either to get back into your own industry at the other side of the recession, or to develop yourself in the current position. There are opportunities in retail too you know.

    Out of curiousity, what in particular is your skill-set from your Masters degree. In part getting a degree in and of itself shows the skill of getting a degree (able to revise etc) but not all degrees actually carry specific skills. Feel free not to answer if its too personal and this is not a political question, just a personal one.
    Why should the unskilled benefit? Because a lot of them are not as you describe them. I've encountered several people working at the same store as myself who have Masters degrees.
    Good for them.
    Others are women who decided to become mothers, and the work hours of the profession they originally chose to go to college for (as in not a 9 - 5 job) can no longer be done concurrently with the hours required to be a mother. Or they are like myself and have taken to doing this work because they've been laid off for reasons wholly unrelated to how "productive" a worker they were at their prior job. Your assessment of the situation is wholly ignorant.
    Choosing to do part-time hours etc is a choice. I can respect their choce.
    Besides that, working in retail is definitely more difficult than the actual professional job I had in my field. That job, the pay was better, the work was enjoyable, and the clients we did work for didn't treat us like robots, idiots, or as if they are better than us. Retail? The pay is not great, the work is not enjoyable at all, it is far more tiring since it involves far more physical labor, and our clients/customers do treat us like robots, idiots, or as if they are better than us. I'd have to say dealing with all of this is a skill unto itself.
    If you're looking for sympathy, you're not going to get it, I work in retail too. Not what I expected after Uni but I saw an opportunity and I took it. I most definitely apply my skills quite regularly (including skills I learnt in my Masters course) and as I said there are plenty of opportunities in the industry if you look for it.

    I do recognise the description that customers/clients can treat you like shit etc, etc too - and I definitely find my job tiring, then again I don't just "work to rule" and never have done.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Inequality in and of itself? Mainly jealousy and all the consequences that has. Which is potentially quite pernicious.
    It's interesting that you give me such a one-dimensional and fishy answer when wiki gives me this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi..._of_inequality



    Considering the amount of energy that goes into tracking economic inequality (eg. the report in the OP ) I'm inclined to think there may be more negative outcomes than just "jealousy" that make the matter interesting to both policy-makers and researchers. This is just a hunch, mind you.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Inequality in and of itself? Mainly jealousy and all the consequences that has. Which is potentially quite pernicious.
    Yes indeed. The greater the inequality the greater the incentive to do what is required to be successful.
    Honesty, huh?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I'm not sure anyone wants a gini coefficient of either 0 or 1.

    Well, maybe some people do, but let's not worry about them too much.
    My old economic ethics professor thought all that was really necessary was about a multiple of 4, i.e. income inequality in excess of the maximum income being four times higher than the lowest was too much. I never did grok why he thought that and it always seemed far too limited to me. Contemporary CEO compensation likewise seems ridiculous to me, in the other direction. I don't see how that's here or there with regard to declarations about "trickle-down" economics though.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #23
    I'm trying to figure out this thing about inequality as an incentive for success. Is it a direct and linear relationship? Are their confounders? How strong is the effect? How well does it work under ideal vs. realistic circumstances? What does the data say?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    My old economic ethics professor thought all that was really necessary was about a multiple of 4, i.e. income inequality in excess of the maximum income being four times higher than the lowest was too much. I never did grok why he thought that and it always seemed far too limited to me. Contemporary CEO compensation likewise seems ridiculous to me, in the other direction. I don't see how that's here or there with regard to declarations about "trickle-down" economics though.
    I guess the OECD guy's reasoning (assuming it was a guy) is that trickle-down was meant to replace income transfers through the state as the vessel for maintaining equality while lowering the tax burden on the high earners. Apparently the data suggests that this didn't happen as efficiently as was advertized (since equality is lesser now than before creating the trickle-down state experiments). I've only started reading the report, so this is just guesswork.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    My old economic ethics professor thought all that was really necessary was about a multiple of 4, i.e. income inequality in excess of the maximum income being four times higher than the lowest was too much. I never did grok why he thought that and it always seemed far too limited to me.
    He may have been thinking about this:

    http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication...efault/pb4.pdf

    Fourth, very low and very high levels of inequality can depress the rate of growth
    itself. The turning point seems to be at Gini coefficients of around 0.40. Beyond this
    point, growth tends to suffer. High levels of inequality can also have undesirable
    political and social impacts—on crime and political stability, for example.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I guess the OECD guy's reasoning (assuming it was a guy) is that trickle-down was meant to replace income transfers through the state as the vessel for maintaining equality while lowering the tax burden on the high earners. Apparently the data suggests that this didn't happen as efficiently as was advertized (since equality is lesser now than before creating the trickle-down state experiments). I've only started reading the report, so this is just guesswork.
    Well then as Wiggin and Rand stated he's just wrong. 'Trickle-down' never had anything to do with equality. In fact it kinda presupposed the opposite. It's main thrust as a concept was that growth was more important than equality, that income transfers by the state were holding growth back and that the benefits everyone *or at least a fair majority* received from increased economic growth would do more for society as a whole than redistribution would.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #27
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    I'm not quite sure why Rand dismisses views which state that too great an inequality is problematic out of hand and labels it as "jealousy" as if that would make the point somehow non-valid.

    After all, a sense of fairness is hard-wired into almost all humans (and other animals as well!). And when someone goes against that sense of fairness, the situation may easily become volatile. Experiments have shown that there is a certain tendency towards punishing the malfeasant even if the person opting for punishment has to take a loss himself.

    As a result, it's not very clever to disregard this situation as a non-problem. And yes, Rand, this sense of fairness is independent of the absolute standard of living. It's about the relative position one perceives.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Well then as Wiggin and Rand stated he's just wrong. 'Trickle-down' never had anything to do with equality. In fact it kinda presupposed the opposite. It's main thrust as a concept was that growth was more important than equality, that income transfers by the state were holding growth back and that the benefits everyone *or at least a fair majority* received from increased economic growth would do more for society as a whole than redistribution would.

    Which would suggest they're worried about the secondary effects of trickle-down, as per

    Rising income inequality creates economic, social and political challenges. It can stifle
    upward social mobility, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the
    rewards they deserve. Intergenerational earnings mobility is low in countries with high
    inequality such as Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and much higher in
    the Nordic countries, where income is distributed more evenly (OECD, 2008). The resulting
    inequality of opportunity will inevitably impact economic performance as a whole, even if
    the relationship is not straightforward. Inequality also raises political challenges because
    it breeds social resentment and generates political instability. It can also fuel populist,
    protectionist, and anti-globalisation sentiments. People will no longer support open trade
    and free markets if they feel that they are losing out while a small group of winners is
    getting richer and richer.
    This is just given as a morsel from heaven though insofar as I can tell, so we're right back to where we started and Randy can just keep saying this is just pseudo-communist propaganda, the net wisdom of the forum (let alone the human race) is kept level if not lowered, and everyone is slightly less happy with one another. I suppose we ought delete the thread
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    He may have been thinking about this:

    http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication...efault/pb4.pdf
    Uh, no. The only thing linking that and what he said in that lecture is that both happen to have the roman numeral 4 in them. While it's certainly possible that a certain level of gini coefficient entered into the analysis behind his position, the income band he was talking about comes in at a substantially lower coefficient than 0.40
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's interesting that you give me such a one-dimensional and fishy answer when wiki gives me this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects_of_inequality
    What do you think is behind less "social cohesion" etc - also you know the meaning of the word "pernicious"?
    Considering the amount of energy that goes into tracking economic inequality (eg. the report in the OP ) I'm inclined to think there may be more negative outcomes than just "jealousy" that make the matter interesting to both policy-makers and researchers. This is just a hunch, mind you.
    Indeed, because many people view inequality as a bad thing in and of itself. As I've said I don't.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •