Let me ease back into this, after a break of several months, with an easy one.
Norm asks: Why is one inequality different? The context is a piece contrasting the strides towards greater racial and gender equality in the USA with the widening economic stratification that has accompanied it.
Here’s the answer: one inequality is not different. Equality means ‘of opportunity’ – and this is precisely what is meant by greater racial and gender equality: equality of opportunity.
Differing economic outcomes are not a measure of equality. In fact, differing economic outcomes are an inevitable consequence of equality of opportunity.
The apparent paradox is no more than a conjuring trick with words. In the chalk corner we have equality. In the cheese corner we have redistribution of wealth. They aren’t the same thing at all and never will be, however much you try to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of political rhetoric.
As people like Robert Putnam have observed, increased diversity tends to correlate with decreased solidarity. Hence the widening stratification (and note that the very few remaining strong manual unions tend to be the white male ones – police, fire, trains).
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2006/10/liberal-who-sometimes-seems-to-shrink.html
In a UK context, I’d posit that increasing diversity may well spell the end of the welfare state in the next couple of decades. If I were an evil global capitalist with a few quid to spare, I’d subsidise those parties, pressure groups and bloggers who defend the most outrageous welfare allocations – the asylum seeker in the £2m rented house etc. Every one of those stories in the Mail or Telegraph is another little chip away at the post-WW2 settlement.
I was horrified to see how many agreed that benefits should not rise with inflation – even though benefits are supposed to support a minimal standard of living, and inflation on basics (food, rent, warmth, clothes, transport) is WAY above the official figure.
Smashing to see you’ve returned to blogging!