Lines

            From our artistic beginnings, we learned how to draw lines. Straight lines, crooked lines, black lines, white lines. And we still do— except today, we use them among people. We divide and group individuals in our mind, and even if we don’t overtly stereotype, we all hold certain assumptions and jump to conclusions about others based on certain characteristics like their race, dialect, appearance, etc.

Even men as great as George Clooney are offenders:

            And it’s more than that. The consequences of how we think about individuals, are far reaching— they determine how we act towards them and ultimately who they are relative to ourselves. And often times we don’t recognize this, but these thoughts ultimately end up as a self fulfilling prophecy.

Let’s look at an example:

Let’s say Timmy is a fourth grader and accidentally bumped into a fifth grader in the lunch line. Now Timmy thinks that this big bad fifth grader is going to retaliate because that’s what fifth graders do. So he turns around and gives the fifth grader a good taste of his fist to land the first hit, which obviously angers the older child who returns the favor, a punch he wouldn’t have thrown had Timmy not preempted a nonexistent fight.

Now, Timmy constructed the threat that this individual posed, based off of his assumption that retaliation would be inevitable, actually leading to what he feared. Now it sounds ridiculous, but it happens more often that you’d think. And on a global scale— countries do this too, and often the conflict involves more than a few scratches and bruises, they risk war.

Let’s think about the enemies that our country has. The first that comes to mind are terrorists— a threat that’s driven our nation to an economic quagmire and military overstretch. But are they really everything that we make them out to be, do they really meet the constructed image that we've portrayed them as?

Look at Iraq. We invaded to prevent the development and usage of Weapons of Mass Destruction by terrorist groups, which by the way we still haven’t found today. And our military presence has actually incited more opposition in the region. Christopher Layne, a national editor of the Atlantic, wrote in his study, “Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived” that

“The US presence on the ground in the Middle East also incites terrorists to attack American interests…‘what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a…goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland’

(It can be found here)

An even better example is the Cold war. Construction of threats is literally the reason that an arms race began. Our country made the Soviets an “other”, assuming that they would develop arms to harm the good people of the United States, in turn justifying their development of nuclear weapons, which just incited further justification for the Soviets to develop their weapons of which we pointed to and said we had to keep increasing our arsenal for. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

The moral of the story is, be careful how you think and how you group and “otherwise” different groups of people, because it’s not just a thought, it affects much, much, more.

           

TRAPPED

Inequality. We're used to thinking about it in terms of different societies, a gap between an upper and lower class. And in a global context, in terms of countries, we don't realize how large that gap really is between roughly the bottom fifth of the world and the rest. Paul Collier, a professor of economics at Oxford University, makes the argument that growth is severely stunted for the so called bottom billion of the world's population, as the rest face development, increasing and increasing the inequality gap.
(If you want to read more here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Bottom-Billion-Poorest Countries/dp/0195373383/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354637064&sr=8-1&keywords=bottom+billion)

He articulates 4 development "traps" that keep the bottom billion in the third world, some of which certainly apply to even countries he considers as part of the developed world. Today we're going to look at a country that's facing their own share of problems, Spain.

There are a couple traps that really don't apply to Spain:
First is the landlocked with bad neighbors trap. The problem with being landlocked is that it makes strong economic growth nearly impossible, because the only trading partners are your neighbors if there's no coast. That being said, poor partners means more trade and economic stimulation.

Spain is neither landlocked nor surrounded by poor neighbors-- if you don't believe me, here's a map:



Second is the natural resources trap. Collier states that an abundance of natural resources can actually have negative consequences if there's poor management. Because it makes conflict and exploitation more likely, and raises the possibility of Dutch Disease-- resource exports cause the value of the currency to go up, making other export industries noncompetitive, some of which could be more sustainable avenues for economic growth. Spain does have some natural resources (i.e. coal, iron ore, lead and zinc) however, these have all been effectively managed without any conflict or the diminishing of other industries.

Third is bad governance in a small country, which may apply to Spain in terms of the economic crisis that they're currently in- but there are more reasons to believe it doesn't: First is that Spain isn't nearly as small as the countries that Collier analyzes, second is that Spain's economic crisis is primarily blamed on the housing crisis which lay to waste the tremendous investment Spain's bank threw at the housing industry, ruining their Banks. Before the economic crisis Spain was actually running smaller deficits than Germany, and its debt was only 27% of the GDP-- making them a model for fiscal responsibility.

Finally is the conflict trap-- the one that almost makes sense in the context of Spain. The conflict trap mostly revolves around civil war, with two primary effects, the first of which is economic- wars and coups cost a lot of money and stall economic growth, second is the risk of relapse which is really high following a conflict. Right now, Spain is embroiled in the possibility of civil conflict- although there's a small risk of violent escalation, Catalonia has threatened secession on multiple occasions due to economic grievances

All in all, Spain doesn't quite fit the mold for any of these development traps-- although it is headed toward crisis in its own way, hopefully it doesn't stay there.

Me-ta-phors Be With You

            Metaphors. We all use them more often than you may recognize. They don’t live strictly in poetry or literature; they even extend into the way we think. Take sports for example, we often think about athletics in terms of war:

The Bulls were really attacking the Piston’s defense

We need to be more aggressive on offense

We got killed last night

The coach just sent in his second unit 

(Read “Metaphors We Live By”, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson for greater insight on the subject http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011)

In other words, we live metaphors, and we don’t even know it. One of these metaphors is people as numbers. Numbers are beautiful because they’re so straightforward. It’s why people always ask, “On a scale from one to ten, what do you think about ­ (fill in the blank). But, by that very same quality of directness, numbers seem to make inequality inevitable.

Let’s think about it— whether we’re measuring skill, attractiveness, intelligence, etc. Numbers can reduce people to just another measurement or a mark on a scale. Now how this plays into social division is clear: people as numbers creates some that are unarguably ‘better’ than others (i.e. “That 9 is clearly better than the 7”). And because people are constantly looking at themselves through these social lenses, it’s natural to surround themselves with people of similar “rating” or stature, because people don’t like feeling inferior. This is the same way social groups and cliques form.  

           

            But let’s look even deeper. Numbers define groups of people, not just individuals. Take the 1% movement for instance. An extreme divide which essentially groups people as either part of this tiny wealthy minority, or the rest of the country. And this exposes two things:

First is the misleading nature of numbers. What about those sitting on the cusp of the 1%? Let’s say, the 2%ers. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that they’re the same as the 90^th percentile of the nation in terms of wealth.

Second is the relative nature of inequality. Percentages inherently depend upon relative measurement, making what’s considered the top percent of a nation subjective to that society. I found an internet meme that was pretty popular as the 1% movement developed:

And it’s incredibly accurate. Poverty is a completely relative construct; it all depends on the wealth around you.

So the next time you decide to trust the absolute value of numbers, think twice, because in the end they’re just metaphors for the people that they’re trying to represent. 

Human Capital in the Election

There's been recent talk in the election about both presidents' stances on the subject of income equality. For many, our perception of Romney is found in his millions of dollars, and his involvement with Bain Capital, and his ridiculously wealth background. Now, as great as all of this, it makes talking about income a very touchy subject for him. However, he's made one of the most interesting points on the subject, and it starts with one thing: Human Capital.

Romney has made a compelling case for a reform in policy towards social equality- and it starts with looking past economic reform.

Whether you’re a student or in the workplace, we all can understand that some members of any community are valued over others. Whether that’s found in their relationships with others in the classroom or the office, or their contribution to the group, it’s clearly there— especially in business, where there’s often a bureaucratic hierarchy defined by position and payroll. He’s trying to close those gaps as best as he can.

One of his proposed policies is to reform existing government training exercises, instead of assigning strict roles and training people to jobs, the new government would assist businesses in finding ways for the business to become more productive as a group of individuals, encouraging everyone to contribute to the business in a more balanced sense. Training would take place on a more personal level for each business, finding the best fit to keep it as competitive as possible. But what this does, is grants each worker, a greater role in the production of the workforce. 

What this is supposed to do, is balance the social scale of inequality, which is not often incorporated into policy levels, because it’s not tangible like the economy or foreign policy, but a bold effort nonetheless.

How it works out, however, is going to be really interesting to follow, if he’s given that opportunity. Such is the problem with any policy proposal, in theory it may sound incredible, but application is difficult. Changing the culture of the workplace is huge, and I’m not so sure an external force can change that.

Whitehall

Hey, I’m here to talk to you about economic inequality again. If you read the last post, you understand the goal of this project, and if you haven’t, hopefully you’ll go and take a look. So let’s get started.

            I’d like to start small— so a very local instance of economic inequality, just to convince you of how individuals respond to, even the slightest, disparity. And because, we all love social experiments, let me introduce you to the Whitehall Study. The Whitehall Study was conducted in order to uncover the effect that socioeconomic status has on a “society”, in this case, a government body of employment, a perfect test sample, where there’s a clearly outlined hierarchy.   

            The experiment examined about 18,000 male civil servants over a period of 10 years (1967-1977), between the ages 20 and 64, and shockingly found, that between the top and bottom levels of employment, the mortality rate was three times greater for those working at lower levels of income.^{1 2}

There are a couple things to keep in mind:

a) The ages were generally well distributed, it’s not like all of the older workers were at the bottom

b) Workers at “lower levels of income” still earned a comfortable wage— clearly defined as the middle class, so it wasn’t a question of whether their needs were being met

c) External health factors like smoking, preexisting conditions, etc. haven’t been able to explain the correlation between status within the organization and the health of those individuals

What’s suspected is that inequality impacted the health of that organization. That because within the organization, there was a clear dominance and subordination complex that any hierarchy creates. And because, humans are constantly viewing themselves through the eyes of others, knowing that they were subordinate put a considerable amount of stress and pressure on themselves.

            And why is stress so bad? I’m glad you asked. Biologically, it’s explained easy enough. It’s one of the most powerful influences on health, because when you’re stressed your body is prone to default to a “fight or flight mode”; biologically, stress is perceived as preparation for an incoming threat. While our heart rate and awareness goes up, it trades off with functions designed for daily maintenance like the buildup of tissue or immune system. Over a long term, the effects of chronic stress are dire.³

            That’s something to think about— even within a single institution; clearly defined inequality has a tremendous impact on individuals, even to physical health. It’s not just about violence in poorer neighborhoods, miles away from your life (I’ll be sure to talk about that later).

            Something that you may have not picked up on is the lack of influence that the absolute amount of money meant to these individuals. It was all relative, and relative disparity is everywhere. Which begs the question, how has inequality affected you?

Cites!

1. Davey Smith, G., M.J. Shipley & G. Rose. 1990. Magnitude and causes of socioeconomic

differentials in mortality: further evidence from the Whitehall Study. J. Epidemiol.

Comm. Hlth. 44: 265–270.

2. Rose, G. & M. Marmot. 1981. Social class and coronary heart disease. Br. Heart J.

45: 13–19.

3. Wilkinson, Richard B. "Why Is Violence More Common Where Inequality Is Greater?" SAO/NASA ADS: ADS Home Page. Equality Trust Foundation. Web. 22 Mar. 2012. <http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NYASA1036....1W>.

Kindness

Kindness. An act that’s difficult to explain by any standard. We often take it for granted, but if you really thought about it, could you really explain why the Salvation Army received $2,827,795,000 in donations and support?

What is it that drives individuals to take money out of their own pockets and place it in the hands of complete strangers?

Some say that kindness is the product of an internal goodness placed in the hearts of every man, woman and child that transcends the biological inclination to compete. Others say people ultimately only do things because it benefits themselves, whether it’s the warm feeling they receive from being charitable or the belief that giving will ultimately come back to bless them.

As a seventeen year old, unexposed to the harsh realities of this big bad world, I can only hope that the former is true, that true kindness isn’t driven by anything but the goodness of one’s heart. However, I also recognize that many don’t— and I’m here to give you a reason to want to help those hurting in the midst of vast economic and social inequality.

Our country is plagued with the belief that money solves problems. But the truth is, especially in a social and cultural context, that it’s not so important how much money a nation has, but how it’s distributed.

            America has the greatest wealth inequality in the world, a problem we don’t often recognize. Instead we’re told that the reason that this or that neighborhood has such high mortality rates, poor education systems, and stunted economic growth is because they don’t have enough money, never thinking that it’s because some people have too much.

            Interestingly enough, that inequality places the “health” of our society (broadly defined by crime rates, mortality rates, education, etc.) at huge risk that has major implications for all of us. Now the question that remains is how inequality directly affects the health of a society, and what can be done to bridge that gap.