(Part 2) Best income inequality books according to redditors
We found 273 Reddit comments discussing the best income inequality books. We ranked the 55 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
By in large, that's not what happened with the money; it largely went into the pockets of the very rich, who only rarely give it to causes other than furthering their own wealth.
Under the Affluence: Shaming the Poor, Praising the Rich and Sacrificing the Future of America
Sounds like bullshit. My boss will be trickling on my head for the next 8-12 hours starting in 10 minutes.
You absolutely have a right to hold all these views, but as this is an evidence-based forum, I'd like to respectfully request that you reexamine some of your assumptions here.
> I assume many of them either come from a racial/ethnic background similar to the greatest population of illegals in the US; Mexican nationals, or outright come from mixed status families.
Gallup did a poll last year indicating that 87% of non-Hispanic whites support a pathway to citizenship.
> Literally don't own guns, don't know many immediate friends and families who own guns...
Some of the most liberal and vocal public advocates for gun control — such as Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Joe Biden, and even Gabrielle Giffords — are gun owners. Generally speaking, they support background checks, closing the gun show loophole, bans on large magazines, and other policies along those lines... presumably policies that wouldn't affect their ownership, but that they believe would reduce gun-related violence. The idea that liberals don't own guns or know people who do is simply false.
> Often not financially independent...
Some of the most liberal places in the country, such as San Francisco and New York City, are also the wealthiest. The pejorative term "limousine liberal" is not just apocryphal; it has roots in reality. And the evidence suggests that the wealthy shift to the left is increasing.
Good pics thus far. I'd like to add:
City: Rediscovering the Center by William H Whyte.
Great Streets by Allan Jacobs.
Life Between Buildings: Using Public Spaces by Jan Gehl.
And for something different, a little Marxist geography:
Social Justice and the City by David Harvey
You raise a number of interesting points, but I think that you do misunderstand Deneen's position, especially when you say you think he is "another pissed-off white male who's upset the world doesn't revolve around him anymore." I highly recommend that you read his book Why Liberalism Failed, because you'll get much more context around his view. In the event you don't pick up his book, however, I'll quote from and paraphrase a relevant part of the book so you understand more where he's coming from.
>Increasingly today's students enter college solely with an aim to its "practical" application, by which is meant its direct relevance to its economic and technical applications, wholly unaware that there is a more capacious way of understanding "practical" to include how one lives as a spouse, parent, neighbor, citizen, and human being.
>A two-tier system has arisen in which elite students are culled from every corner of the globe so that they may prepare for lives of deracinated vagabondage, majoring only in what Wendell Berry calls "upward mobility." Elite universities engage in the educational equivalent of strip mining: identifying economically viable raw materials in every city, town, and hamlet, they strip off that valuable commodity, process it in a distant location, and render the products economically useful for productivity elsewhere. The places that supplied the raw materials are left much like depressed coal towns whose mineral wealth has been long since mined and exported.
In these elite communities, commitments to identity politics and diversity allow the elite to identify other members "capable of living in a cultureless and placeless world defined above all by liberal norms of globalized indifference toward shared fates of actual neighbors and communities." Those who remain and are unable to reach elite institutions are condemned to low-wage work.
>While advancing liberalism assures that individuals are more free than ever from accidents of birth, race, gender, and location, today's students are almost universally in the thrall of an economic zero-sum game. Accusations of careerism and a focus on resume building are not the result of a failure of contemporary education but reflect the deepest lessons students have imbibed from the earliest age: that today's society produces economic winners and losers, and that one's educational credentials are almost the sole determinant of one's eventual status.
>The educational system, transformed into a tool of liberalism, is also ultimately the systemic creation of a new aristocracy of the strong over the weak. Liberalism's denouement is a society of deep, pervasive stratification, a condition that liberals lament even as they contribute in manifold ways to its perpetuation - particularly through its educational institutions. Liberalism's success thus fosters the conditions of its failure: having claimed to bring about the downfall of aristocratic rule of the strong over the weak, it culminates in a new, more powerful, even more permanent aristocracy that fights ceaselessly to maintain the structures of liberal injustice.
He does not ignore "the actual elites who are making billions and billions of dollars off the backs of the middle class and the poor," but rather recognizes that they are a consequence of a selective liberal meritocracy where the elite class is created and sustained through membership to elite institutions. Those people making billions often came from elite universities.
Finally, he is one of the elites he's castigating, but I think ironically, this only further serves his point. The only people capable of contributing to intellectual thought in the new aristocracy of liberalism are those who have passed through the elite institutions and received doctorate degrees. If he wasn't at such an institution, he'd be condemned to a life of low-wage work instead of having the opportunity to criticize the system which allows him to hold such a position.
Oh good god. You don't think academics argue for the moral value of alleviating poverty, improving education, guiding social policy, protecting the environment, safeguarding public health, uncovering our past, interpreting works of literature, preserving our collective knowledge, or understanding the human condition?
Academics aren't unthinking collectors of dry facts; they take moral stances and make moral arguments in the course of their work all the time. Have you not heard of Richard Dawkins? Peter Singer? Henry Louis Gates Jr.? Bell Hooks? Paul Krugman? Have you ever even listened to a TED talk?!
Honestly, I'm not in the mood to argue with the level of ignorance you're displaying here. You clearly have no real understanding of what academia really is, how it works, or what it's for. I've been sitting here drafting a response but the task of explaining all the ways that you're wrong (such confusing morality with religion, or equating academia with science) is just too overwhelming. I mean seriously, one of the world's most famous academics literally wrote a book advancing a moral argument for social welfare! The word "conscience" is even in the title!
But I will ask you this - if Anita has lost her academic credibility by taking a moral stance, why does she keep getting invited to speak at universities?
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Movements-Suzanne-Staggenborg/dp/0199363595/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524116263&sr=1-1&keywords=Social+Movements
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Project-History-Crisis-Movement/dp/081299356X
https://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Occupied-Media-Pamphlet-Chomsky/dp/1884519016
https://www.amazon.com/Failure-Nonviolence-Peter-Gelderloos/dp/0939306042/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TA9JFMNZ6P9YJBESCE21
> people on the fence didn't see reports of violence and say "I want to join them", and people opposed to it used violence to legitimize their own oppression.
People also didn't see MLK on TV and think "Oh, those poor black people are getting beat up by cops, maybe they should have the same rights as white people", no, instead they said "Thank god those cops are puting those damn uppity n*ggers in their place." Its really kinda taboo to talk about since nobody wants to admit to being on the obviously losing side of the civil rights fight, but that's basically what it was like. By the time the protest kicked off most people were already so diametrically opposed that nobody had a chance of "winning over the other people". A protest acts more as a reckoning. By the time people are so fed up they hit the streets its too late to try to gather public support. The numbers you have at that point are basically what you're gonna get. The flow of addition people isn't from switching sides on the issue, its going from feeling hopeless to believing there's actually a shot of having change. When it comes to protest, continued action actually depletes numbers. The longer you have a protest, the more fairweather people get annoyed bit it and the more people think positive outcome is more and more unlikely. Its like dominoes, by the time the first one topples its only a matter of time until all of them do and you damn better hope you have enough lined up to knock over whatever you're trying to topple. Ok, that metaphor doesn't really work but I hope you get the idea.
[S] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) O C I [A] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [L] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [S] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [T] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) R [A] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [T] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [I] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [F] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [I] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [C] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [A] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [T] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [I] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [O] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) [N] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711)
[O] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711)
C
I
A
L
S
T
R
A
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
Finland does not use tracking in K-12. Finland has very light national standards - compared to any US state standards or CCS - and no national curriculum. Yes, they do have one standardized test, but that's a far cry from what we have.
Moreover, by the Finland's own account this article is spot on in terms of what has led to their success - equity. This is also corroborated by research in other countries - refer to The Flat World and Education: How America's Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future
i'm just reading Social Class in the 21st Century by Mike Savage who worked on the Great British Class Survey and this is pretty much the premise.
People with the most social, cultural and economic capital get roles made for them which stifles social mobility in recent times.
It's a bit dry, I'm not endorsing it really but social science is all nonsense to me --- ooh random statistic, anecdote, random statistic, anecdote etc.
It's true though, you just need to look around and see how things are.
Yang's plan for UBI is opt-in, so it would not hurt anyone getting more out of their current benefits. However, it can have many benefits for them over current welfare programs. UBI is no questions asked, which means recipients can switch over from welfare programs and avoid the burdensome compliance, monitoring and restrictions enforced by those programs. In the book Automating Inequality, the author outlines many of the issues with current welfare programs, and how they use automated systems to systematically discriminate and trap the poor, restricting their freedoms and creating convoluted incentive structures. At the end of the book the author makes a case for replacing these bloated programs with UBI as a way of lifting people out of poverty. Obviously Yang's policy is not enough to completely achieve this goal and replace welfare, but it's a first step in the right direction.
It seems to be substantially quoting from Heffernan and Marqusee's Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: Inside Kinnock's Labour Party, though.
I mean, that seems like a reasonable source, and it's 20 years old, so not just recently fabricated to suit the current narrative.
> You don't go to court over cases that are "incredibly difficult to prove" unless you're throwing a hail mary (aka, frivolous) because lawyers cost money. A lot of money.
And that's not what Frivolous means in that context(Fun facts - Frivolous has a specific legal definition, and it doesn't mean "A hail mary"), and it's actually the case that pretty much all cases of sexual discrimination in the workplace are incredibly difficult to prove, for a number of reasons that I'm not going to go into here.
Partially because it would take a stupid amount of time, partially because honestly I'm not sure it's worth the time to explain when others who know far more than me have done it much better.
(Excerpted from this book by Caroline Fredrickeson, the director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative office, and previously general counsel and legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, considered one of the foremost legal experts on Anti-discrimination laws and discrimination cases. Strong recommendation from me, Worth the read if you're interested in this sort of thing, but honestly I'm pretty sure you're not.)
So, TL:DR, yeah, nah.
The average white family has an average of $81,000 in net worth while the average black family only has $8,000
-The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality
>Despite years of so-called reverse racism, whites remain atop every indicator of social and economic well-being when compared to the African Americans and Latinos who, it is claimed, are displacing us from our perch: employment data, income, net worth; you name it, and we are the ones in better shape without exception.
>Indeed, in some regards the gaps between whites and folks of color have grown in recent years, as with wealth gaps, which have actually tripled since the 1980s, now leaving the typical white family with over 20 times the net worth of the typical black family and 18 times that of the typical Latino family. Even when comparing families of middle-class income and occupational status, whites possess 3-5 times the net worth of middle class blacks, suggesting that even African Americans who have procured good careers and obtained college degrees lag well behind their white counterparts, due in large measure to the inherited disadvantages of past generations, affirmative action efforts notwithstanding.
>This is why, despite affirmative action — which may well be eradicated (at least so far as higher ed is concerned) by the Supreme Court within the month — white racial advantage remains a real and persistent phenomena in American life, and one with which fair-minded persons should still be prepared to grapple.
>To claim that affirmative action not only disproves white privilege, but indeed suggests its opposite — black and brown privilege[...] is to ignore the entire social context within which affirmative action occurs[...]
>In other words, when whites critique affirmative action, we typically ignore everything that came before such efforts — and which unjustly skewed the historical balance of power and access in our favor — and even that which continues to favor us now, from funding and other advantages in the schools that mostly serve our children, to preferential treatment in the housing market, to ongoing advantages in employment.
In other words, quit being a dufus.
Charlie Brooker has been rewarded with a successful TV career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brooker
Dan Hind left the The Guardian and writes books:
"The Threat to Reason: How the Enlightenment Was Hijacked and How We Can Reclaim it"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Threat-Reason-Enlightenment-Hijacked-Reclaim/dp/1844672530
"The Return of the Public"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Return-Public-Dan-Hind/dp/1844675947
I used to be a consumer tech writer and I also run a philosophy blog. Here are a few topics I think are worth reflecting on. It's kind of late and I'm in a hurry to share my thoughts, but I'll try and keep everything organized.
Privacy: Is data just like any other type of property/asset? Or does no one own data? Is privacy a human right, making our data priceless? Or should we be allowed to sell our data for money?
Algorithms: What should be the role of algorithms in the distribution of public services? By automating systems do we risk locking out certain people from society? Who is responsible when an algorithm makes a "bad" decision.
Tech platforms: Are tech companies responsible for misuse/abuse of their platforms? To what degree are they obligated to police their platforms for bad actors or unintended use?
Automation and inequality: As technological unemployment rises what should society's response be?
Those are just a few topics off the top of my head, I can elaborate on them and provide sources in the morning.
Ignore the babble from social media obsessed guy in the video.
Here's a good book on the subject that doesn't cite twitter.
Nature's review:
> Humanity hovers at a momentous technological crossroads, declares engineer Vivek Wadhwa. 'Exponential' advances seeping into every cranny of life could propel us towards utopia or dystopia — Star Trek or Mad Max, as he puts it. Writing with Alex Salkever, Wadhwa ranges over applications from genome editing and the Internet of Things to artificial intelligence, weighing up their potential for risk and the universality of any benefits. Readers may not all share his enthusiasm for autonomous vehicles, but his pointed analyses of the coming transformations add nuance to the debate.
Here's the Amazon page: https://www.amazon.com/Driver-Driverless-Car-Technology-Choices/dp/1626569711/
The Driver in the Driverless Car: How Our Technology Choices Will Create the Future
by Vivek Wadhwa, Alex Salkever
For more information on our nation's love affair with groupthink, might I suggest The Death of Why by Andrea Schlesinger? It has some great points on how we are sealing ourselves away, state-by-state, city-by-city, site-by-site. How we refuse outright or straw-man any point of view that makes us challenge what we already "know" to be true.
Only read selected chapters, but [Social Stratification] (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Stratification-Gender-Sociological-Perspective/dp/0813346711) seems pretty excellent.