What is Social Inequality? (Part 1 - Definitions and Assumptions)

With our innate obsession with comparison we perceive social inequalities all around us. Furthermore, the media bombards us with news of inequalities, people organize demonstrations to protest inequality, and Facebook, reality TV, and celebrity gossip profit by highlighting the differences among us.


In addition to our innate perceptions and what we learn from others, I believe it is also important to think for ourselves. Although many of us claim to be aware of social inequalities, how would you define or explain social inequality? I encourage you to take a moment and attempt to formulate your own definition before proceeding.

Social inequality is ____________________________________.

As with many common words and phrases I have always assumed I inherently knew what they meant. However, attempting to write my own definition of social inequality proved difficult. I feel a definition of social inequality should have the following characteristics:

• Simple to understand
• Clear in meaning
• Broad in scope
• Allows differences to exist yet equality to be maintained
• For example, two people can be of different races and equal. Race may explain the presence of inequalities, but it is not in and of itself an inequality. It is simply a difference.
• Evaluates equal opportunities, not just equal outcomes
• We can lead a horse to water, but we can’t make it drink. In this scenario, both horses have an equal opportunity to drink, but their outcomes can be different. Equal opportunity, different outcome.

Since I was unable to write my own satisfactory definition, I have adopted collegiate instructor of Sociology and Criminal Justice Kimberly Moffitt's definition:

Social inequality is the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society.

It is simple, clear, able to be broadly applied, allows for differences while maintaining equality, and evaluates opportunities not just outcomes. In addition, it adds a key component of unequal rewards for equal opportunities. I like it a lot. Great job Kimberly!

As a topic increases in complexity, often more assumptions are required. For a fruitful and healthy discussion, I believe everyone must understand each others' definitions and assumptions. For the remainder of this post I will discuss my personally held assumptions and fundamental beliefs of social inequality. After laying a foundation of definitions and assumptions I will direct future posts towards the following:

• Do social inequalities exist?
• If so, where do they exist and how do we measure them?
• Why do they exist?
• Should they exist?
• What has and is being done about them?
• What is our goal standard of living?
• What can be done on a personal, community, and governmental level about them?

Fundamental Beliefs -

Disclaimers

1. A massive amount of debate has and can be directed towards if any assumption is true or false and right or wrong. I am open to these debates, however for pragmatic reasons these are the liberties/assumptions I am utilizing.
2. I apologize for the large number of beliefs. It is my aim to be remain as transparent as possible.

1. People should receive a just reward for their productivity.

• People should not get paid less than their productivity.
• People should not get paid more than their productivity.
• All things being equal, if Fred Flintstone produces 10 widgets a day while George Jetson produces 50 widgets a day, I believe George should receive a greater monetary reward.
2. Successful people of high integrity should not be overly punished for their productivity.
• I am open to a degree of progression within a tax system as long as everyone pays something and the highest tax rate minimally discourages productivity. Even with a flat tax structure more productive people pay more in absolute terms than less productive people.
3. Laziness and unwillingness to work should not be rewarded.
4. Personal responsibility with accountability for one’s choices should be maintained.
• At times the welfare system bails out low income/wealth people from poor choices while at times bailouts save rich people from poor choices. Both of these need to be minimized and ideally eliminated.
• That being said, for developed countries I believe there is a responsibility of the government to care for its citizens. However, I believe it should be the quinary safety net and be administered at a regional (state, county, or city) rather than national level with an emphasis on person to person giving. Please see Private Charity series for additional details.
5. Those with greater wealth/income have more choices and opportunities.
• While not the ideal scenario in all situations, I do not think this can be eliminated without violating other beliefs I hold.
6. Individuals know how to best spend their resources to maximize their own benefit (also referred to utility in economic terms).
• Large, one size fits all governments are inefficient managers of resources.
• Of note, we all have different preferences and tastes for what brings us greatest benefit/utility.
7. People create jobs. Government is responsible for creating and maintaining an environment that is just, stable, secure, safe, and rewarding for citizens to engage in business.
8. High risk businesses need a high reward. 

• This will naturally lead to differences (again, not necessarily inequality) in income and wealth as many will fail while few succeed. Those who succeed need to be adequately compensated for their risk with large rewards. Consider professional sports and lottery. Lots of people play while only a few win. However, those that do win receive massive rewards. Due to the risky nature of the business, income/wealth differences are inherently generated.
• Thus, in the absence of mass income and wealth redistribution there will always be the very rich among us.


9. The world changes. We must adapt. In the information and technology age we live in there are few (if any) who will be able to learn one skill/trade/profession and engage in this business for the duration of their working career. We must position ourselves and others to continuously adapt and learn in a changing world.
• Subsidizing outdated businesses and trades only slows the transition to more productive technologies.
• There are fewer movie rental places, ice breakers, or telegraph operators. However few would choose to give up video streaming, refrigerators, or cellphones to utilize more of these antiquated services.
10. We must have sound money to reduce social inequality. Allowing the Federal Reserve to print money and manipulate interest rates is not only ineffective, it creates market distortions that must be corrected in resulting depressions/recessions.
• Newly created money is frequently used to pick winners and losers via bailouts, waging war, and continuing public assistance programs.
• Furthermore, the inflationary effects of printing money disproportionately affect the poor. The cost of basic necessities inevitably increase faster than income. As the poor spend a greater proportion of their incomes on basic necessities, they suffer the effects of inflation the most.
11. People vote with their money and the market responds.
• This is evidenced by the success of discount stores, the fair-trade coffee movement, and fast food chains inclusion of healthy options.
• Applied to certain social inequality movements, some people value cheap products and services more than they value supporting “worthy” causes. Whether this is right or wrong is in the eye of the spender. I simply feel it is important individuals understand they are making a value judgement every time they spend money.
12. Simplicity, transparency, honesty, trust, and accountability are needed to reduce inequality.
13. We should celebrate both domestic and international gains in standard of living.
• It’s not “us versus them”.
• This highlights the importance of defining one's perspective. Do we have a narrow perspective where we compare social inequalities among our immediate peers, our fellow citizens, countries with similar economic profiles, or a broader perspective where we compare ourselves to everyone in the world?
14. Unless resources are acquired illegally, I am against large scale income/wealth redistribution.
15. If nonviolent theft is considered criminal, then nonviolent theft by businesses should be prosecuted as criminal cases or nonviolent theft should only be civil cases as well.
16. Income is income. The discrepancy in capital gains and income tax should be removed.
• I understand the base money has already been taxed, but it is only the new money that is being taxed and I support taxing capital gains and standard income at the same tax rate.
17. All in definitions. The quickest way to lower or raise the poverty rate is to redefine what poverty is.
18. Equality is promoted when societies work to create an environment where the field is level and people are fairly rewarded for their contributions.

Much effort has been directed towards reducing and eliminating social inequalities. Income, wealth, health, and a number of intermediates (education, race, ethnic, age, gender) are frequent targets of social action organizations and political campaigns. For a complex and controversial discussion to have long-lasting benefits, I believe a solid understanding of definitions and assumptions must be constructed to serve as the foundation for future problem solving. While imperfect and open to analysis, I have adopted a definition and provided my assumptions surrounding social inequalities.

As stated in “Why you need this blog”, I hope to use this foundation to help unify people rather than divide people. It is my aim to construct a framework to analyze if social inequalities exist, why they exist, should they exist, and what can be done on a personal, community, and/or governmental level about them.