The politics of inequality

Jeanne, my wife, sent me (bless her) the link below to a TED talk by Richard Wilkinson on the effects of income inequality in developing countries. It's almost 17 minutes long, but it's worth watching.

TED, founded in 1984, stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design and is a global set of conferences owned by the private nonprofit Sapling Foundation, formed to disseminate "ideas worth spreading."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

 Why is it worth watching? It describes a problem that affects many people, including you and me, and helps us understand what's going on. How we respond is another matter and one I will address briefly.

But first let me say a bit about the points Wilkinson makes, in case you don't watch the video (or even if you do). He shows that wealth makes no difference in life expectancy between countries, but it does within countries.His research teach used data from the United Nations and the World Bank.

The factor he delineates as key is how much richer are the richest 20% in a country than the poorest 20%. First, he looks at health and social problems and shows that countries with the least income inequality (i.e. greatest income equality) have the fewest problems.

His research team used the UNICEF index on child well-being, which includes 40 components and found the same trend. (He has helpful charts to illustrate these trends.)

The differences between us matter very much, he says. He shows that people in countries with greater income inequality trust each other less. The rates of mental illness are greater in countries with greater income inequality. I haven't said which countries these are. Unfortunately, the United States and Singapore have the greatest income inequality of the 20 or so countries included. Japan and the Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland) have the least income inequality.

Another factor (no surprise, and possibly the subject of a future blog) is the proportion of people in prison. And, Wilkinson says, this is not driven by crime but by more punitive sentences.

Then he looks at social mobility, which is greater in countries with less income inequality. He says: "If Americans want to live the American dream, they should move to Denmark."

How do countries reach more equality? he asks. It varies. In Sweden, where there is inequality in earned income, higher income is taxed more. Japan, on the other hand, has a more equitable income across the board.

Here in the United States, as you know, income inequality is great and getting greater, and the tax structure doesn't offset that much at all.

Wilkinson also points out that people's greatest stress comes from effects on self-esteem from social standing.

We are social beings, and these trends in our society affect us in different ways. They also affect our neighbors. Our spirituality needs to reflect this understanding. To live faithful lives in the Spirit, we need to recognize our social reality (and that of our neighbors) and strive for greater justice. 

If you follow the logic of Wilkinson's research, it's not only justice but our own well-being that calls us to seek greater income equality in our country.

But how? I use the dreaded word "politics" in my title. It's also the title of a chapter in my book. There I write that the word, derived from the Greek word polis, denotes a decision-making body. "Politics," I write, "reflects the workings of a community of people making decisions together to carry out their goals, the kind of life they've set for themselves."

We can try to work with others to make decisions that help create a better, more equitable environment. Doing so will help everyone.

Unfortunately, we have a politics of inequality in our country,one that tends to favor not only the richer 20% but the richest 1%. Helping bridge that gap helps us all.

The possessed

No, this is not about Dostoevsky's novel, also called The Devils or The Demons in other translations. Instead, I'll share some thoughts from reading Luke Timothy Johnson's book Sharing Possessions: What Faith Demands (Eerdmans).

This is a second edition of a book first published in 1981, if that matters. Johnson teaches New Testament and Christian origins at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, and he's written many books.
For those of you not really into theology, forgive me (that's a theological category, by the way). I'll try to be succinct.
Johnson tackles the thorny question of how we connect being a Christian and the way we own and use things. And when he talks about possessions, he doesn't limit this to money or material things. He includes our bodies, which, he writes, "are symbols because they reveal, make manifest, our inner emotional states and attitudes."
What he calls "the real mystery concerning possessions" is "how they relate to our sense of identity and worth as human beings." The problem we face is when we confuse being and having.
In these days of lamenting the huge inequalities in our society (a subject of a future blog), of the 1% and the 99%, it's easy for some to equate wealth with evil or idolatry and poverty with goodness and purity. All of us, no matter our wealth, are subject to the idolatry of equating what we have with who we are or of being selfish.
And Johnson points out how society affects the way possessions are perceived. He offers the example of how taking candy from a baby used to be a symbol of the greatest offense. But "in some sugarphobic circles today it would be regarded as an act of highest virtue."
Certainly in America today, with our general standard of living, we view possessions in a different light from how a person in, say, Somalia, might view them.
The question Johnson asks that I'm interested in is to what extent our possessions possess us. This applies to the material things we "own" (a word that raises all kinds of questions), but it also has to do with things like physical health, education or relationships.
Later, Johnson gets to the subject in the title of his book, sharing possessions. He calls this the mandate and symbol of faith. He notes that how we view God determines our view of other people. In other words, "the way we perceive and respond to the ultimate reality gives shape to the way we perceive and respond to all other reality." The stance of idolatry is, The more I have the more I am. But if we are all equally naked before God at the level of existence, then we are equally loved by God and "equally clothed in the only worth that matters."
Johnson notes that the idolatry of equating ourselves with our possessions often comes out of fear. He points out that just before Jesus in Luke's Gospel says, "Sell your possessions and give alms" (12:33), he says, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (12:32). 
If you read the Bible enough you'll see that it says much more about money and wealth than it does about sex or even prayer. And one of the things it says is that our possessions--whether that refers to the material things we own or to our health or education or relationships--is for sharing. In Jewish practice--as well as Muslim and Buddhist and Hindu, among other religions--almsgiving is encouraged.
We can share freely because we receive freely from God's abundant love and because what we own and later share does not determine who we are.
Am I free of being possessed by my possessions? Not at all. Just last month I discovered that a book I'd loaned out never got returned, and I don't remember who I loaned it to. (Memory is becoming a less reliable possession.) That this bothered me shows that I did not share very freely.
I also struggle with the temptation to equate my worth with my income, which is much reduced since I'm only employed half-time now.
My desire is to be possessed by God, not by what I think I own.