How economic inequality harms societies | Richard Wilkinson

How economic inequality harms societies | Richard Wilkinson


You all know the truth of what I’m going to say. I think the intuition that inequality is divisive and socially corrosive has been around since before the French Revolution. What’s changed is we now can look at the evidence, we can compare societies, more and less equal societies, and see what inequality does. I’m going to take you through that data and then explain why the links I’m going to be showing you exist. But first, see what a miserable lot we are. (Laughter) I want to start though with a paradox. This shows you life expectancy against gross national income — how rich countries are on average. And you see the countries on the right, like Norway and the USA, are twice as rich as Israel, Greece, Portugal on the left. And it makes no difference to their life expectancy at all. There’s no suggestion of a relationship there. But if we look within our societies, there are extraordinary social gradients in health running right across society. This, again, is life expectancy. These are small areas of England and Wales — the poorest on the right, the richest on the left. A lot of difference between the poor and the rest of us. Even the people just below the top have less good health than the people at the top. So income means something very important within our societies, and nothing between them. The explanation of that paradox is that, within our societies, we’re looking at relative income or social position, social status — where we are in relation to each other and the size of the gaps between us. And as soon as you’ve got that idea, you should immediately wonder: what happens if we widen the differences, or compress them, make the income differences bigger or smaller? And that’s what I’m going to show you. I’m not using any hypothetical data. I’m taking data from the U.N. — it’s the same as the World Bank has — on the scale of income differences in these rich developed market democracies. The measure we’ve used, because it’s easy to understand and you can download it, is how much richer the top 20 percent than the bottom 20 percent in each country. And you see in the more equal countries on the left — Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden — the top 20 percent are about three and a half, four times as rich as the bottom 20 percent. But on the more unequal end — U.K., Portugal, USA, Singapore — the differences are twice as big. On that measure, we are twice as unequal as some of the other successful market democracies. Now I’m going to show you what that does to our societies. We collected data on problems with social gradients, the kind of problems that are more common at the bottom of the social ladder. Internationally comparable data on life expectancy, on kids’ maths and literacy scores, on infant mortality rates, homicide rates, proportion of the population in prison, teenage birthrates, levels of trust, obesity, mental illness — which in standard diagnostic classification includes drug and alcohol addiction — and social mobility. We put them all in one index. They’re all weighted equally. Where a country is is a sort of average score on these things. And there, you see it in relation to the measure of inequality I’ve just shown you, which I shall use over and over again in the data. The more unequal countries are doing worse on all these kinds of social problems. It’s an extraordinarily close correlation. But if you look at that same index of health and social problems in relation to GNP per capita, gross national income, there’s nothing there, no correlation anymore. We were a little bit worried that people might think we’d been choosing problems to suit our argument and just manufactured this evidence, so we also did a paper in the British Medical Journal on the UNICEF index of child well-being. It has 40 different components put together by other people. It contains whether kids can talk to their parents, whether they have books at home, what immunization rates are like, whether there’s bullying at school. Everything goes into it. Here it is in relation to that same measure of inequality. Kids do worse in the more unequal societies. Highly significant relationship. But once again, if you look at that measure of child well-being, in relation to national income per person, there’s no relationship, no suggestion of a relationship. What all the data I’ve shown you so far says is the same thing. The average well-being of our societies is not dependent any longer on national income and economic growth. That’s very important in poorer countries, but not in the rich developed world. But the differences between us and where we are in relation to each other now matter very much. I’m going to show you some of the separate bits of our index. Here, for instance, is trust. It’s simply the proportion of the population who agree most people can be trusted. It comes from the World Values Survey. You see, at the more unequal end, it’s about 15 percent of the population who feel they can trust others. But in the more equal societies, it rises to 60 or 65 percent. And if you look at measures of involvement in community life or social capital, very similar relationships closely related to inequality. I may say, we did all this work twice. We did it first on these rich, developed countries, and then as a separate test bed, we repeated it all on the 50 American states — asking just the same question: do the more unequal states do worse on all these kinds of measures? So here is trust from a general social survey of the federal government related to inequality. Very similar scatter over a similar range of levels of trust. Same thing is going on. Basically we found that almost anything that’s related to trust internationally is related to trust amongst the 50 states in that separate test bed. We’re not just talking about a fluke. This is mental illness. WHO put together figures using the same diagnostic interviews on random samples of the population to allow us to compare rates of mental illness in each society. This is the percent of the population with any mental illness in the preceding year. And it goes from about eight percent up to three times that — whole societies with three times the level of mental illness of others. And again, closely related to inequality. This is violence. These red dots are American states, and the blue triangles are Canadian provinces. But look at the scale of the differences. It goes from 15 homicides per million up to 150. This is the proportion of the population in prison. There’s a about a tenfold difference there, log scale up the side. But it goes from about 40 to 400 people in prison. That relationship is not mainly driven by more crime. In some places, that’s part of it. But most of it is about more punitive sentencing, harsher sentencing. And the more unequal societies are more likely also to retain the death penalty. Here we have children dropping out of high school. Again, quite big differences. Extraordinarily damaging, if you’re talking about using the talents of the population. This is social mobility. It’s actually a measure of mobility based on income. Basically, it’s asking: do rich fathers have rich sons and poor fathers have poor sons, or is there no relationship between the two? And at the more unequal end, fathers’ income is much more important — in the U.K., USA. And in Scandinavian countries, fathers’ income is much less important. There’s more social mobility. And as we like to say — and I know there are a lot of Americans in the audience here — if Americans want to live the American dream, they should go to Denmark. (Laughter) (Applause) I’ve shown you just a few things in italics here. I could have shown a number of other problems. They’re all problems that tend to be more common at the bottom of the social gradient. But there are endless problems with social gradients that are worse in more unequal countries — not just a little bit worse, but anything from twice as common to 10 times as common. Think of the expense, the human cost of that. I want to go back though to this graph that I showed you earlier where we put it all together to make two points. One is that, in graph after graph, we find the countries that do worse, whatever the outcome, seem to be the more unequal ones, and the ones that do well seem to be the Nordic countries and Japan. So what we’re looking at is general social disfunction related to inequality. It’s not just one or two things that go wrong, it’s most things. The other really important point I want to make on this graph is that, if you look at the bottom, Sweden and Japan, they’re very different countries in all sorts of ways. The position of women, how closely they keep to the nuclear family, are on opposite ends of the poles in terms of the rich developed world. But another really important difference is how they get their greater equality. Sweden has huge differences in earnings, and it narrows the gap through taxation, general welfare state, generous benefits and so on. Japan is rather different though. It starts off with much smaller differences in earnings before tax. It has lower taxes. It has a smaller welfare state. And in our analysis of the American states, we find rather the same contrast. There are some states that do well through redistribution, some states that do well because they have smaller income differences before tax. So we conclude that it doesn’t much matter how you get your greater equality, as long as you get there somehow. I am not talking about perfect equality, I’m talking about what exists in rich developed market democracies. Another really surprising part of this picture is that it’s not just the poor who are affected by inequality. There seems to be some truth in John Donne’s “No man is an island.” And in a number of studies, it’s possible to compare how people do in more and less equal countries at each level in the social hierarchy. This is just one example. It’s infant mortality. Some Swedes very kindly classified a lot of their infant deaths according to the British register of general socioeconomic classification. And so it’s anachronistically a classification by fathers’ occupations, so single parents go on their own. But then where it says “low social class,” that’s unskilled manual occupations. It goes through towards the skilled manual occupations in the middle, then the junior non-manual, going up high to the professional occupations — doctors, lawyers, directors of larger companies. You see there that Sweden does better than Britain all the way across the social hierarchy. The biggest differences are at the bottom of society. But even at the top, there seems to be a small benefit to being in a more equal society. We show that on about five different sets of data covering educational outcomes and health in the United States and internationally. And that seems to be the general picture — that greater equality makes most difference at the bottom, but has some benefits even at the top. But I should say a few words about what’s going on. I think I’m looking and talking about the psychosocial effects of inequality. More to do with feelings of superiority and inferiority, of being valued and devalued, respected and disrespected. And of course, those feelings of the status competition that comes out of that drives the consumerism in our society. It also leads to status insecurity. We worry more about how we’re judged and seen by others, whether we’re regarded as attractive, clever, all that kind of thing. The social-evaluative judgments increase, the fear of those social-evaluative judgments. Interestingly, some parallel work going on in social psychology: some people reviewed 208 different studies in which volunteers had been invited into a psychological laboratory and had their stress hormones, their responses to doing stressful tasks, measured. And in the review, what they were interested in seeing is what kind of stresses most reliably raise levels of cortisol, the central stress hormone. And the conclusion was it was tasks that included social-evaluative threat — threats to self-esteem or social status in which others can negatively judge your performance. Those kind of stresses have a very particular effect on the physiology of stress. Now we have been criticized. Of course, there are people who dislike this stuff and people who find it very surprising. I should tell you though that when people criticize us for picking and choosing data, we never pick and choose data. We have an absolute rule that if our data source has data for one of the countries we’re looking at, it goes into the analysis. Our data source decides whether it’s reliable data, we don’t. Otherwise that would introduce bias. What about other countries? There are 200 studies of health in relation to income and equality in the academic peer-reviewed journals. This isn’t confined to these countries here, hiding a very simple demonstration. The same countries, the same measure of inequality, one problem after another. Why don’t we control for other factors? Well we’ve shown you that GNP per capita doesn’t make any difference. And of course, others using more sophisticated methods in the literature have controlled for poverty and education and so on. What about causality? Correlation in itself doesn’t prove causality. We spend a good bit of time. And indeed, people know the causal links quite well in some of these outcomes. The big change in our understanding of drivers of chronic health in the rich developed world is how important chronic stress from social sources is affecting the immune system, the cardiovascular system. Or for instance, the reason why violence becomes more common in more unequal societies is because people are sensitive to being looked down on. I should say that to deal with this, we’ve got to deal with the post-tax things and the pre-tax things. We’ve got to constrain income, the bonus culture incomes at the top. I think we must make our bosses accountable to their employees in any way we can. I think the take-home message though is that we can improve the real quality of human life by reducing the differences in incomes between us. Suddenly we have a handle on the psychosocial well-being of whole societies, and that’s exciting. Thank you. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “How economic inequality harms societies | Richard Wilkinson

  1. More oral flatus. The only way for economic equality by force is for everyone to be equally poor.

    This guy was hitting the sweet spot of his drunk as the talk ended.

  2. Income will never be equal because some people are either just smarter and harder working while others just aren't.

  3. While an interesting idea on the surface, there is no mention of how diverse these countries are, or rather, aren't. There are several variables that are not addressed. The U.S. and U.K. are at the more poor ends of all these spectrums, without mention of how diverse the cultures and the population are. If it has long been known that people at the lower economic spectrums in the more "balanced" countries, seek new lives in the U.S. or U.K., hoping to better their lives or gain the "American Dream", it would seem obvious to objective observers that NOT all, if any, of those people ever achieve an economic status that is comparable or unilateral, even if it is better than where they came from. What was near squalor in one country, may be a healthy "upgrade" in another, yet still be at the low eco spectrum of their new country. This study does seem very biased and, with all due respect, somewhat rushed and incomplete.

  4. Would sure like to see some sources…some real info…SOMETHING other than presentation slides that look like they were made by Apple.

  5. Personal wealth has nothing to do with how much one earns. It has a lot to do with how much one saves, economizes. Live within one's means. Don't have credit cards. Pay by cash or debit card. Budgeting and savvy financial planning must be taught at elementary schools. Singapore has CPF, which obligatorily takes a certain percentage from salary to save toward pension. Japan has it, too. Other developed nations have insurance system incorporated with private insurance companies for health and pension. This system does, again, create income gap. Education, Medical Care and Pension must be managed by the Gov't through progressive taxation system. Many developing nations don't even have tax systems as such. They abuse the international economic and developmental aids to avoid introducing the progressive taxation system. That is why the leaders of those countries are easily corrupted. The developed nations should assist them to enforce the tax system. That is a real valuable international aid.

  6. Japan doesn't have a big gap, because their inheritance tax is extraordinarily high as compared to other developed nations. Even Emperor Michiko's siblings had to give up the parental property to the council as the inheritance tax was exorbitant. The USA, UK, France and all the European nations should tax more heavily on the wealthy people's inheritance succession. Great idea!

  7. The HYPOCRISY of this babbling intelligent moron. You are rich why don’t you share your wealth and give your 90% to your poor neighbour.

  8. There never has been and never will be a society with wealth equality. That would be a permanent hideous dogfight for status. The currency becomes status instead of materiel. The difference is that an unequal capitals society still gives something to the weak. Take a look at not how far there is between the top and bottom rung but how high the bottom rung has moved up with time. Billions out of poverty in the last 50 years. That is success. And it was not achieved by forceful wealth equalising. This guy also present his data incorrectly. check his comments about each graph he shows. No allowance for size of population. geographical placing or extent….

  9. How is this a problem? The children of the unproductive, of the uncompetitive, of the uncreative, of the unservicing suffer not because they are poor, but they have horrible parents. Also some of the data is outright fake. Social mobility is MUCH higher in the USA as compared to Denmark. The son of a travelling salesman became the wealthiest person not just in the USA, but the entire world history. Show that example in the Denmark, please. Do it.

  10. Cool. He compares countries with homogenous societies to ones that are very diverse and then marvels at how diverse countries have more inequality. Is he not smart or just dishonest. Different cultural behaviors bring about different economic results no matter what the law of the land is. Does he honestly believe that a person in poverty in America will do much better in Denmark without altering their values and behavior.

  11. The greatest question. Will income redistribution as this fellow advocates, change the behavior on crime, fatherless households, education?

  12. People often seem to confuse wealth inequality with wealth concentration and it needs to stop.

    Income and wealth inequality are good but income and wealth concentration is bad. You need an unequal distribution of income to incentivize people to work harder or longer or better/more efficiently or to do the jobs most needed or that others don't want to do in order to gain more. You are providing more to society so you should be able to redeem more from society.

    That being said, under our current system you are able to redeem exponentially more from society than you provide by owning rather than for performing any labor function. No company can have net profits without the laborers producing more value than what they take home in their paychecks. While some of these profits are used productively to expand the business others are simply given to the owners despite them not doing any work. Because they get a piece of everyone else's paycheck they can become wealthy quite quickly and use this wealth to buy ownership of other businesses. This leads to compounding interest and exponentially greater wealth for the owners but it was a transfer of wealth from laborers, not creation of new wealth. New wealth can only be created by labor.

    Aside from being considered an unfair system of distribution it also leads to unfair politics, lobbyists working on behalf of big money backers could get regulations passed that either disrupted the backers competition or helped their own business in some way, these relationships get them government contracts or subsidies, or lower taxes on their capital gains while keeping them high for labor wages. The concentration can disrupt the democratic process and becomes a drag on the free market. So again income and wealth inequality are good but income and wealth concentration is bad and people need to stop confusing them.

    If you want to fix the wealth concentration issue while leaving the wealth inequality incentive structure intact giving you a fair and optimally running capitalist society, one that increases productivity, economic mobility, and social cohesion, to the point where everyone even the richest have a higher quality of life then it can all be fixed with one simple tax that enforces linear inequality over the current exponential inequality.

  13. Everything from health insurance, to produce and food marketing, to health benefits and healthy/betterment lifestyles, it's all marketed towards the wealthy here in the U.S. The rich get to afford healthy lifestyles to benefit their lives and help them make smarter decisions, while the poor can only afford canned chemical food, low-quality produce and little to no health insurance coverage. Dental, vision, mental health etc. are among the many "leisures" that the poor at the other end of the long American gap cannot have.

  14. At the risk of stating the obvious, correlation does not imply causation. It's very possible (probable, even) that all these effects are caused by a third variable. The kinds of politicians who would pass the laws that decrease inequality are also the kinds of politicians who are likely to pass laws to help the other problems discussed.

  15. Solutions are available, but I've yet to meet anyone who knows that. Here's one (first link): https://www.google.com/search?q=mark-g-meyers+webnode+cooperative-assembly
    Civilization needs infrastructure. It's that simple.

  16. People are BORN unequal – unequal in talent, unequal in skill, unequal in ambition. Why is it a surprise that they are unequal in productivity (aka 'income')? Would you prefer everybody be equally UNproductive?? Stupid idea!

  17. Everyone should just take Japanese and Scandinavian systems as a basic example for themselves. They seem to have the best numbers in many ways…

  18. 5:05 The average well-being of our societies is not dependent any longer on national income and economic growth. That’s very important in poorer countries but not in the rich, developed world.” But the differences between us and where we are in relation to each other matter very much.

  19. I feel that the overall premise of this video is pretty solid, though I do think that he missed a crucial point. Of the main countries that seemed to have benefited from equality we see that they are mostly homogeneous (ex. Japan and the Scandinavian countries). I feel that the mixing of different cultures could be a factor of these statistics.

  20. "No man is an island." I think this is super true. Everyone gets affected somehow at the end whatever position they are in.

    as mentioned in the video. solving problems of social inequality would not only be good for poor and unprivileged class but also the rich class. I believe that it's important to not include his or her own position when thinking or contributing to a certain social issue. Any other social problem would be the same.
    There is a term for this:
    "Veil of ignorance". The decision-maker of the issue should not take into account, which person he or she is.

  21. Bigger income gaps lead to deterioration in different categories: SOCIAL RELATION: child conflict, social trust, HEALTH, drug abuse, life expectancy, and HUMAN CAPITAL, social mobility etc. Health and social problems are worse in more unequal countries. Countries do well are Japan, and countries do worst is Portugal. Social dysfunction related to inequality.

  22. Income means something very important within our societies, and nothing between them. The explanation of that paradox is that within our societies.

  23. Japan and U.S are like brother and sister, they never give up each other. they both really strong, so compare with other countries, their inheritance tax is extraordinarily high as compared to other developed nations.

  24. Based on the chart in the video, we could clearly see the income inequality between countries. In order to deal with this, more policy should be established on the taxation to improve the real quality of human life by reducing the differences in income.

  25. ”People in unequal countries trust each other less” “income means something very important within our societies” “The more unequal countries doing worse on all these kinds of social problems.” The video didn’t tell the crucial causing or the corresponding relations between these measurements. But one thing we are sure about is that national governments need to use their power properly to seek for better living standards for citizens.

  26. I agree with the conclusion he got since the problem of economic disparity has existed for a long time and according to the evidence of the graphs he provided, people should pay more attention to this problem. There is a huge difference between the life of the rich on the top and the life of the poor on the bottom. The unequal societies have many negative effects on people as everyone is sensitive about their income, social status and wants to compare to others. However, some of the graphs in the video might not be convincing because they are out of date.

  27. “The average well-being of our societies is not dependent any longer on national income and economic growth. That’s very important in poorer countries but not in the rich, developed world.” I think if Far Periphery need to emphasize at the bottom of the social gradient in order to achieve the further sustainability. They should dedicate to the improvement of national economic construction to access to the equality society.

  28. Although the GNI index of American is high, however, states among the country are absolute unequal, more unequal states do worse on those kinds of measurements like mental illness, homicide rates and social mobility. The huge gap of economic disparity harm rich country that causing by the extreme inequality.

  29. “Homicide rates are higher in more unequal US states and Canadian provinces”
    “the reason why violence becomes more common in more unequal societies is because people are sensitive to being looked down on.”This is one of the negative affect caused by the inequality, richer country need more equality for sustainability .

  30. I do think he made a good assumption about making the society less stressful by averaging out our incomes to create an equal society. I mean it would work in some country but in general, we are all in a fast-developing society where we would change certain policy to adapt the environment and most of us are living a life above the standard condition. Yes of course, they are people who work and only earn the minimum wage but that’s why we have government subsidy. Economics have their cycles and that’s the way it is. The market contains balance and people need to realize that socialism will never work in western countries. Just because those people are living in an unequal life does not mean taxes payer and those who contributed to the economic have the suffer to pay for their need.

  31. Everything in this world is marketed. From health insurance, to produce and food marketing, to health benefits and healthy/betterment lifestyles, they are all marketed towards the wealthier part of the population here in the world. The ones with money get to afford healthy lifestyles to benefit their lives and help them make smarter decisions, while the ones with no money can only afford low-quality produce, low-quality food, and little to no health insurance coverage. Things such as dental care, vision care, mental health are among the many "leisures" that the poor people in the world can’t get.

  32. Every single graph this dude is showing is either wrong, backwards, simplistic, or misguiding. He shows life expencancy vs gdp while removing 190 countries in the world. There is absolutely no basis for his conclusions. Comparing Japan with the us, picking and choosing data, ignoring a thousand other factors, ignoring causality, all sort of stuff. Really sorry to see people falling for this nonsceintific, ideology-based opinions misguiding naiive listeners. .

  33. In the 1950s, a typical CEO in America made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. in 2018 the CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm was about 361 times more than the average worker. Is this really the sign of a fair society?! Seems feudalism is making a comeback pretty soon if the same trend continues.

  34. It doesn't matter how equal you are if that equality shared is miserable. The lands on the left on the 20%20% graph suffer high suicide rates and low fertility. Are you kidding me, Japan the most equal country in the world? Their economy and demographics are in a rotten state.

  35. One cause he missed is how the inequality is created. Case 1: everyone is living ok and 1% happened to say, find gold on their acre of land. Case 2: 1% are skimming off the wealth created by all the underpaid people, and handing untaxed wealth to the next generation who didn't create anything. In case 1, no one is suffering because someone had a bit of luck. Case 2 is very different, where the 1% are actively taking from the underpaid, causing direct harm. It is not jealousy causing harm. It is the dog-eat-dog nature of sanctioned theft causing harm.

  36. Well, he showed a chart of all developed countries in the West and said look, there is no correlation between life expectancy and economic wealth. Why there are not African countries?
    Because if he did, it would not matter anymore whether to shrink economic differences…
    Wealth means better life expectancy. Chart of Western countries prove it. There is a little different if life expectancy is 72 or 78 years, you are old enough. But the difference is when you die at 72 ok at 35.

    If equality would be a solution, why not just take from the rich and burn that money? It would make everything more equal, therefore better life expectancy, right?

    No corelation? I see the poorest Portugal having worse social and health problems :).
    No, equality is wrong objective. The wealth is the thing we should pursue!

    USA comes bad in the charts and Scandinavian good. Why is that? First of all, USA is not homogenous country, there are many many nationalities and culcures which brings some clashes. There are no crips, there is not KKK in Sweden or Norway.
    If you took a chart how homogenous is a country and and compared it to well-being you'll see that it correlates.

    I'd love to see chart of homocides in "more equal countries" like HOnduras, Venezuela etc. etc. I guess it should be zero, if they are equal! 😀

    This whole video will take USA as rich country and compare it to other as if income equality would be only factory that has influence to well being. It's surely one, but out of thousands.

    It is so easy to disprove it, just show the opposite – more equal states, more healthy etc. should they be, but they are not…

  37. Sweden and Japan are the same in the one key point – as nation, they are homogenous mostly one culture why prevents social problems.
    He admits that Japan and Sweden do not have the same economic policies, therefore this health stuff is not about having "high taxes".

  38. So let's just all become socialists and get rid of the free market according to this guy. I guess success is bad

  39. Does he control for poverty? Because there will be a strong correlation between the 20% R/P inequality measure and the poverty levels

  40. Correlation is not causation. Just because countries have income inequality does not mean it causes these social problems. Look at Japan, a place where people are much more hardworking, uniform, conservative, it is not surprising they have a more equal population. On the other hand, the USA is much more racially, culturally, intellectually diverse, liberal place, you expect more difference among people, which will lead them to different outcomes. You either have liberty, diversity, constant progress, accompanied by vast inequality, or you have uniformity, conservation, and constant performance, accompanied by stagnation. It is naive to say one form of society is absolutely better than the other, or it is possible to have both.

  41. The law locks up the man or woman
    Who steal the goose from off the common
    But leaves the greater villain loose
    Who steals the common from the goose.

    The law demands that we all atone
    When we take things that we don't own
    But leaves the lords and ladies fine
    Who take things that are yours and mine.

    The poor and wretched don’t escape
    If they conspire the law to break;
    This must be so, but they ensure
    Those who conspire to make the law.

    The law locks up the man or woman
    Who steals the goose from off the common
    And geese will still a common lack
    Until they go and steal it back!

  42. I would argue that the level of totalitarianism and corruption in a society have a lot to do with quality of life. Hence the bad data from the US, among other countries. And now with the globalist agendas, the world is moving in the wrong direction at a rapid speed. This downward spiral needs to be stopped, or humanity will not survive.

  43. The big mighty dollar…too big?
    Inequality has been the main influencial ingredient to our economy. The modern system was originally designed with a purpose of the manipulation by a few over the mass. It worked beautifully for many years…not so much anymore. Our immensely flawed economical and political systems have grown to a uncontourable state of capitulation…the are falling.
    How is this possible that a supposedly advance specie like us allows a system base on inequality and consumption, resulting in the destruction of our planet, to thrive? Money along with the implementation of junk economical values are the perfect tools to keep us in the dark…untill now that is. As a society, our backs are against the wall, time to choose a different approach to our methods of existence
    …co-existence. It comes a moment in the development of our history when things have to take a quite different significant turn. This planet belongs to every single one of us and we must realize our responsibility to keep her intact and flourishing…our existence depends on it. We now possess the knowledge, the technologies and the resources to redesign a sustainable system that work for everyone and preserve everything that we depend on, to exist harmoniously as a intelligent civilization. All we need now is the will to do it, which is growing among us for the simple reason that we have no other choices…evolution.
    The scale is tipping.
    It's time.
    💫⚡💞🌎💞⚡💫

  44. I love you, Jesse – I loved the combining of Colin Flaherty's books – too bad you didn't get confirmation of that right away! Keep it up!

  45. " ..If you are free you are not equal – if you are equal you are not free…" (Solzhenitsyn). Go figure !

  46. Fucking youtube is turning into broadcast television… no matter what I choose to watch, it puts this mainstream BS "programming" up next in the auto play… shoving their BS make believe crap in your face just like tell-lie-vision does. Anybody absorbed into the charades is a fucking idiot.

  47. the jews divide us then claim racism when we stand up to them. the only thing that hinders us is government and jews and the freemasons. any questions??? economic unequality is great, makes us work harder. go away you little jew trolls. if you didnt have a rigged economy, we would be doing fine. any questions???

  48. Economic inequality within White nations of which you wag your finger at us, and say we're bad bad bad…. but you ignore H O M O G O N I T Y …completely – why is that?
    If you did look at it, you would see racial homogonity = the dominate factor for "good", and forced diversity through infestation levels of 3rd world immigration = the dominate factor for "bad".
    Remove that one factor, and nasty White Christian nations' little red dots would clump-up right along side Japan's.
    I would also wager if you were to take another look at Nordic nation's here in 2019 after their saturation levels of 3rd world Islam, their once perfect nations tell a completely different story.

  49. Being poor doesn't create drug use and crime. Drug use and bad lazy life choices create crime and being poor – jobs are available to anyone who is able to do them. Give them someone else's money and they'll just do more drugs and increase their crime. People are equal but by no means the same because of their own choices. Leftism and its continual efforts to divide people and then create victims where none should exist are the actual cause of this, ie, American ghettos.

  50. Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." – Alexis de Tocqueville
    There will never be economic equality as long as there is socialism disguised as welfare. Every government program has failed…every one of them and they never learn ( On purpose) from their mistakes.

  51. Ok so the "solution" then is to make everyone equal and poor and somehow that will make it all warm and fuzzy and everyone will be happy and shiney. Well sorry but there will ALWAYS be rich and poor, those at the extreme rich end and those at poverty levels because NOT EVERYONE IS EQUAL idiot. Some of us work hard and do ok, whilst others have no inclination to do so at all! Our welfare system just pumps billions into the pockets of alot of useless people out there who are no-hopers that smoke, drink, take drugs and handouts and never intent to get a job because they like to just blame others, they have little motivation to study, get an education and to get ahead, and when they beat or kill their kids they shift the blame to "colonialism" or poverty. Their only aspiration in life is to leave school asap, start breeding, get free handouts and state houses, join a gang and constantly blame others. If anyone talks about "getting-ahead" then the lefties slam them as capitalists and oppressors of the poor because according to them the solution is socialism where all are equal and miserable.

  52. 3:47 Dam well aware of the problem this white Wiches orchestrsdors

    In ly particualr case awarer of what they did to self us ajd refuse tp fix it … to proffit others over self soms

    Look i promss all in usa and the world i will live u all sick bast into a very misserable days prior to your perish

    I will live u like a sucked super sucked Sick fish bones and stinky too to add more sick insult to my inner ira and fury to all of u any where ans in usa

    Oh i will give u all white wanted be aware respomsnle defijitiom of mental issues

    When i realixed what u all wanted enjoy now to your type naturally ..like magic

    Same in usa u all will drop that who survice it to my knees and my sons

    Such social.. types dome wromg

    Ill get u and urs totally

  53. How all of u regarless including ur white witches White negrores deplorables orchestrsde upom us such to create lot of issues but sistematically created now uppm all of u as well and each of yours .

    Not only i upom all responsable bit all that abomimation upom all of u

    Your all stick su ked fish bones ..dare tp come un tv in front of cams on media

    Dare to any and shall see meaj time no matter what u all done i mean all done

  54. This is BS. The only way to get out from poverty is eliminate communism, socielism , progressivsm , just let as work .

  55. So much people defending the rich saying "oh well the poor are lazy, oh well socialism can't work" but big corporations also do their welfare queen by pandering to governments. Seems like everyone forgot what happen in 2009,when big banks took hundreds of billions from consumers to sponge their fraudulent lawsuit that dropped on them. And this isn't all, when the rich push for excessively stringent laws for example labor laws guess what happen, they keep alot of people out of the market. And before saying the poor are lazy, take a look for example at requisites for diplomations, how often what's in the curriculum doesn't match what's really necessary. I understand why so many folks are tired of the left, I remember the social climate at that moment, full of feminists telling how men are toxic, full of ethnicities calling folks racist, both to push laws in their favor. Please guy, remember that the brutal shift in political affiliation post 2016 did not happen because we were wrong ideologically, but because the left media chose mistakenly, many years to take as representatives of the fight for justice pseudo-oppressed feminists and racism appologist out of good faith, and it sadly backfired on them.

  56. The rich run a global system that allows them to accumulate capital and pay the lowest possible price for labour. The freedom that results applies only to them. The many simply have to work harder, in conditions that grow ever more insecure, to enrich the few. Democratic politics, which purports to enrich the many, is actually in the pocket of those bankers, media barons and other moguls who run and own everything.

  57. i couldnt see any evidence on why inequality is the CAUSE of these problems. there is unquestionably a connection between inequality and social problems, but it seems to me that inequality is a symptom, not a cause… the illness is not adressed, only the symptom. in any society, even with the worst problems you can imagine, there will be smarter and stronger people who will rise above them creating a good life for themselves, while others will continue miserable because they have serious problems. this will create, obviously, a huge inequality. poor people need help, but its not ethical to punish the rich for it.
    this smells like socialist propaganda….mmhe.. 😛

  58. Agenda-driven. There was an obvious relationship between child welfare and the gross income measure.. Showing a scatter plot and contradicting is gutsy, but not effective.

  59. 看了幾十場Ted演講的中文翻譯,台灣的翻譯水準屌打簡體字版本不知幾倍以上!👍

  60. Raise your hand if this doesnt scare you or make you worried.

    Is your hand raised?

    If so, theres some more data for the list. Rich people are stupid

  61. Income inequality is a function of age, experience; amount, appropriateness, and quality of education; good marriage, delayed children, and full time job. Redistributing a CEO’s pay adds a few hundred dollars to every employees annual pay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *