CrashCourse - 2015-12-06
Inequality is a big, big subject. There's racial inequality, gender inequality, and lots and lots of other kinds of inequality. This is Econ, so we're going to talk about wealth inequality and income inequality. There's no question that economic inequality is real. But there is disagreement as to whether income inequality is a problem, and what can or should be done about it. *** Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever: Mark, Eric Kitchen, Jessica Wode, Jeffrey Thompson, Steve Marshall, Moritz Schmidt, Robert Kunz, Tim Curwick, Jason A Saslow, SR Foxley, Elliot Beter, Jacob Ash, Christian, Jan Schmid, Jirat, Christy Huddleston, Daniel Baulig, Chris Peters, Anna-Ester Volozh, Ian Dundore, Caleb Weeks -- Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet? Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashCourse Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse Tumblr - http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com Support Crash Course on Patreon: http://patreon.com/crashcourse CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
Searching for that guy who summarizes everything in the comment section. Where you at?
Same here :v but this episode is somewhat light and there is nothing to be summarized. :D
What about algebraic inequalities?
Sad when an educational channel can't even get that right.
i love how russia, japan, south america, and the middle east just don't exist in the thought bubble lol
You messed up the "less than" sign at 1:05
Good catch
this whole series has flame wars going on in the comments section
add another reason for inequality, stealing others resources and waging unjustifiable wars against them. Also, interest rates that banks charge are the major reason for growing unfair distribution of wealth.
just trying to cram for an exam...just passing through
We could endlessly debate about which economic policy is better to pursue which we will never agree on - or we can talk and agree about Mr. Clifford's rad ACDC belt buckle 🤪
Sometimes, when I feel really happy, I go to the comment section and watch Americans discuss socialism.
It never fails to bring me down again.
A good socialist is a dead socialist.
They are not promoting Socialism! They like Social Market economies! (European version not Chinese one) Countries like West Germany had that system.
most americans are ignorant and paranoid as to what socialism is...
I think americans wil get to socialismsooner or later. History likes irony.
They were very very against USSR, so now they will learn disadvantage of capitalism on their own skin. It is justly.
it will never bring you down as much as socialism will!
I just love how as the lessons have progressed , the mood of the videos has progressively became more sombre according to the gravity of the topic being handled.
Thank you for the videos.
We are already living in a "mild" version of Panem (The Hunger Games).
No we dont
What?
lol what
What amount of inequality is good enough?
it's anout quality, not equality.
Every one can be equaly poor.
None.☭
Any
Gabriel Edgar w
By “when does inequality start doing more harm then good “ he means, how much of the money can we get before the mass population of broke people come for our heads?
When they talk about the good of inequality, I believe he means the Meritocratic side of Capitalism, not the Plutocratic side.
People seem to not find something BETWEEN ultra- capitalistic inequality and Socialism
The irony is that what the neocon & centrist/neolib democrat Americans favor is not even true free market capitalism, but government-subsidized business. They call it "free market" but then the people they vote for represent their 'free market' by supporting corporate bailouts, corporate subsidies, and provide tax loopholes to monopolies while penalizing the consumer/individual citizens. (When you call these self-identifying 'capitalists' on it, they often respond "this is only to counteract the effects of unfair corporate tax rates and taxes on the ultrawealthy put forth by this backassward socialist system ya commies cooked up" but then you ask, if liberals have really rigged the system so much against you, why was Glass-Steagall never reinstated? Why is our national treasury privatized? Why has the middle class been disappearing since Nixon and exponentially since Reagan? If Reagonomics is the meritocracy ya'all claim it is, why do so many households now rely on dual income to keep afloat?).
Legit deregulated free market capitalism has plenty of its own problems, but before we can even get to that discussion, we have to get our terms straight, and there's so much murkiness in the rhetoric of the whole debate that people aren't even speaking the same language. It's like the fabled tower of Babel, but only the proletariat can't talk to one another. *
But worse, because we make the same noises but mean different things, and relatively benign sentences in one's own tongue are an insult to someone's mother in the polarized language of the other side.
This is exacerbated, I believe, by social democrats of FDR-ilk identifying themselves as "socialists" as those two were one in the same, but also by moderate secular conservatives running as 'democrats' and the fact that we live in an oligarchy founded originally as a 'democratic republic' and frequently referred to as 'a democracy' - which frequently instates fascist puppet 'democracies' in truly socialist countries to prevent the spread of communism, in the name of 'freedom'.
And while this confusion could be generated by accident, is it merely coincidental? The cartel of dynastic wealth & nouveaux riche CEOs probably communicate just fine, since they own the media injecting propagandist terms, urban legends and fallacies into the system via 24/7 entertainment/news cycle. Why not? Has any postindustrial working class led a large scale civil revolt since global mass media arrived on the scene? The entertainment industry is better than religion; it keeps an increasingly secular population completely distracted from the increasing malaise of their bankrupt lives and sates their primal bloodlust with uninterrupted access to Call o' Duty, football and HBO. Tch...since many of us don't even need to leave the house for it, we can get more socially insolvent & physically weak, too. How could we ever possibly hope to organize if we wanted to?
This comment prolly ain't gonna fix anything; I just needed to vent.
The golden mean is capitalism where income doesn't start at zero, hence Universal Basic Income or the Freedom Dividend as proposed by Andrew Yang.
Thanks guys for this great video! Helps to form a basis of knowledge to then tackle the jargon filled news sources that assume we all know what futures trading and derivatives are.
Well done Jacob, you've finally slowed down enough! :)
A dane be like: "Inequality, what's that?
Did they even address the amount of earners that have changed from different income brackets? Very important in the analysis.
Your poorer than your 1950s relatives by comparison
I don't even have to read the comments. I know it's filled with denial.
Gabriel Edgar- actually we can ignore the issues, we can also focus on other things that are more important like god, community, and family. Focusing on people who have more than you is simply petty and sad and only leads to bitterness
Looking at only wealth is a very bad way of looking at it tho, I live in a 3rd world country, and people here earn at an average of 300$ a month, but it's not that bad when you consider, rent is only 40$ a month in capital of the country, home cooked food is only 3$ a day, transport within capital from first station to last would cost only 25¢... So when you only look at the numbers, 300$ is very small amount of money, but the reality of the situation is that, people can run a family of 4 with that money, now compare that to US... What'd be the income required for enjoying equivalent services
ok boomer
@Skeptical Strom Most of those people are getting more cause they're systemically exploiting hundreds of others in the process lmfaoo. It's important to recognize that as an issue and hold the system accountable, ignoring it will be your own downfall.
Nana- Communism is the most exploitive system so far in history my guy so if that’s your solution I’m not interested. If it isn’t then pray tell
When I was a teenager I asked my dad how it could possibly be fair that some people earned millions while others earned relatively little. He replied to me, "Who gets to decide how much is enough? No one is qualified. It's an impossible task that would be full of corruption. The only fair economy is a free economy." That being said, the country is full of both rugged individualist who deserve freedom, as well as forgotten men who deserve a hand up. A govt that serves both, while minimizing corruption and the cost of bureaucracy, would be the most fair and successful. It would be a socialist catastrophe to begin telling people how much they are allowed to earn for various jobs. - Bill
There is a lot of confusion surrounding socialism at both ends of the spectrum. Thanks for alluding to this simple fact.
I think the point being discussed here is that, perhaps even as recently as when your dad was growing up, for almost a century, but especially between the years of FDR & Reagan (though the decline started with Nixon), we had a government functioned pretty well along the lines of what you discussed. It was an economic golden age on the world stage, a thusfar unprecedented (as far as I'm aware) social experiment of national proportions. Members of minority groups will inevitably bristle here, because they can quickly and accurately point out that it was intolerably discriminatory toward the visible minorities (women, black people), 'casually racist' toward foreigners (and sure, that whole "Japanese"/asian internment debacle), and (perhaps more controversially) dismissive of its 'invisible' minorities (LBGTQ, etc.).
These things being said, the (casually tyrannical) majority was far better off. If this were the Trolley Problem, the utilitarians in the audience would hereby argue that we needed to run over the one guy on the track to spare the lives of the five, even if that wasn't the default social trajectory.
But the U.S., being the "never leave a man behind" guys, federalized antisegregation laws, trespassing on deepseated post-Civil-War era resentment & perceived victimhood in the south, deciding that 'the one guy on the track' needed to be saved, too. They didn't think about derailing the whole train, they just thought about saving that one life - the life of the minority. And doing the right thing, damn the consequences, can never be bad, can it?
There was dissent within the train over the ethics of switching tracks and hitting one person or five people, of stopping the train, of slowing it down to build a new track - all calamity over this sudden awareness that we were speeding toward catastrophe and couldn't come to an agreement.
As often happens in nature, the more aggressive, dominant, militant alphas seized control of the situation. This was the birth of neoconservativism.
All these arguments of people who see themselves as 'traditional' republicans and democrats are using now? They're far more right-wing than the policy decisions of the old guard conservatives like even 'far right' Nixon - who openly favored social welfare and environmental protections. Hell, the average neocon is further right than their posterboy Reagan at this point. And yet, has it been working out better for the economy? Have these middle income neocons found themselves in better financial standing since the polarization began? Is this a results-driven endorsement of extremist paradigms on the part of these 'pragmatic', 'down to earth' neoconservatives? Where are the results?
If there aren't results, what's more likely:
1) that ideology became a tribal echochamber devoid of practical sense, driven by fear of the bogeyman of 'socialism' - a term frequently used to describe the successful policies of former republicans, and always referenced without historical context? That the increased wealth of those who deregulated industries and defunded the American social safety net then invested that wealth in proliferating charismatic propaganda about deregulation and the policies that held them in check? That clever dynastic moneybags exploited the biggest vulnerability of bros: the fear that, deep down, they aren't "tough enough"?
Or 2) that trickle down economics works; we just haven't tried it long enough?
"A govt that serves both, while minimizing corruption and the cost of bureaucracy, would be the most fair and successful"
Yes!
To me it sounds like you are describing a Universal Basic income, or Andrew Yang's presidency...
@Bill Xenakis As Bill Gates would say, "Life isn't fair. Get used to it."
Even socialism, which seems "fair", isn't fair at all. Look at the Soviet Union.
I never understand how packaged CEO make so much more money, are they really that much different?
They also work their ASSES off, to provide the entry level workers with a job in the first place
@Brandon Kelsey no just no entry level jobs exist regardless and ceos dont work that hard
@Blueskull no entry level jobs exist?? Ya right. I could go get 3 right now. Also, CEOs work more than both of us combined. I know a few
@Brandon Kelsey i know a few ceos and the only people who think theh work hard are them aside from thay they work normal hours and will get a couple of phone calls after theyve finished and they act like the grind dont stop
@Brandon Kelsey how does that boot taste kid?
this needs a update a 2019 update india owns a lot of gold and a lot of gold is being moved from the us an Europe banks an back to its owners
Hey, look back to your 1st video, and compare it to this one.
Since then, you two have become more confident and adept at hosting the show, it's much more pleasant to watch now. GOOD JOB.
Tsukiyomi001 let’s not teach them to do hosting, it’s more important to talk about their ideas.
You mean, I wake up 330 in the morning for 5am start and pick 20 apples and you wake up at 7am and keep 15, I keep 5.
I'm a first year grad student and was so incredibly happy when my professor pulled this up in class today! She loves Crash Course as much as I do! DFTBA
What is the full form of “DFTBA”?
Don't Forget To Be Awesome.
Income and Wealth inequality are inevitable and beneficial, extrinsic motivation has value, capital accumulation helps economic growth, people invariably make personal choices which influence their income and wealth, etc.
Always pausing to read the cartons at the beginnig xD
I'm watching this to learn English ^^ you guys speak so fast I am trying to repeat after you- it's so much fun, I wish you spoke even quicker hha
WTF 😅
I really love this video! It really helped me with my project!
small note, at 1:09 the sign should be less than <, not greater than >.
Thanks for thr video i am working on my thesis which is "impact of globalization on income inequality" your video help me alot thankyou
1:10 small error, the inequality sign is facing the wrong way
Hey Crashcourse! Absolutely love your videos! They're amazing! I was looking for a video on Universal Basic Income (UBI) and couldn't find any in your resources. Any chance we'll get one?
After watching this video ,particularly the chart at 5:50 i immediately thought of CGP Greys video Humans need not apply.Yep the future looks grim .
I have to throw my two cents in, I believe the best solution to resolve inequality is to build co-ops instead of corporations. Massive ones like the mondragon co-op.
#THISSTARWONTBURNOUT
(John Green I am sorry if that brings up a sore topic but people seem to forget what's important)
I see an issue with the first thought-bubble. You say "less than 20%", but it's expressed in the cartoon as ">20%", which is "greater than 20%".
PROOFREADING THE INTERNET
no > is the right sign because the larger part of the symbol is faced at the larger integer. greater than 20% would be <20% which you are implying that >20% is less than 20%.
Wow, they did really well discerning between wealth and income inequality, most places would blurr the two which is rather dishonest.
Thanks for an objective view.
Any bias was unnoticed at least by me.
I do agree that income inequality is a good thing but my explination in long so I won't bother.
Its good if you're rich. Otherwise its patently stupid.
1:09 That's a "Greater than" sign when you said "Less than". Whoops
>20 means more than 20, not less. @1:20
More > Less
+NotionsOfLight You do realize that is what that person wrote, right?
I have watched a few of your videos. They are all good. I found this one amazing! Subscribing and thumbs up.
Great job explaining income inequality!
Thank you, extremely useful!
how can we be earning more when the price s of goods increase, increase earnigns is just an illussiom, open ur eyes
Branko Milanovic! He's from Serbia :D
6:59 why is that condom wearing overalls and a hat?
I'm sure 70 percent of the comment section does no understand wealth inequality. Invluding me.
N. El idrissi - 2015-12-06
This video was uploaded 7 minutes ago and already has 4 dislikes, meaning the people who disliked didn't even watch the damn video. #triggered
Diyanshu Sarkar - 2019-11-09
pwrserge Ok boomer
Benjamin Claassen - 2019-12-06
@Rick Wolford Wow your just ignorant. Facepalm Boi's actually mad asl because he's a broke bum living in his moms basement :')
Logan - 2019-12-31
@Home of the Mad your logic is flawed actually.
Logan - 2019-12-31
@Home of the Mad doesn't work. Socialism leads to comunism. It's all bad.
Home of the Mad - 2019-12-31
@Logan
As evidenced by what?