Inequality much worse than most think

[BadJuju]

Re: Visit the right places--change your tune

my dear mr juju - YOU need to get outa yer rut, sir.

you said you are working in construction - what sort, may i ask?

I am an industrial electrican, good sir.

[BadJuju]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

There you have it. The unfair advantage. The ability to know when to leave and where to go and how to do it and the guts to take action.

The U.S. has selected for those with this ability for generations.

You speak as though people that have this ability earned it. They didn't. It was by happenstance that they have it. It is a favorable combination of genetics and environment that distinguishes people, not choice. At no point does choice ever enter into the equation. Everyone would choose to be gifted mentally and physically. Everyone would choose to have the physical and mental fortitude to withstand even the greatest adversity the universe could throw at them. And to have the ability to prevail. But we don't choose. There is never any choice. We are what we are by fortune or misfortune.

[santafe2]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

great thread, great discussion- some friction for sure, but mostly mutual respect. i'm also impressed by the range of experience and education demonstrated here. we're quite the group! unfortunately, we're so much better at identifying the problems than finding solutions.

Hi jk, it's good to read your ideas here. The OP posted a video describing the problem in the US as they see it. I tend to agree with that point of view. Others on iTulip, including EJ look at this issue through a different lens. For me this is a thread where a community of people have discussed:

1. If the problem described is a problem at all. Possibly inequality is a defining aspect of the US experience.
2. If the government has a role where family and culture are failing an individual or group.
3. If leveling the playing field will mute the efforts of the best people in the US.
4. If leveling the playing field will have unintended outcomes that will make the US entrepreneurial system less robust.

I am obviously quite passionate in my view that we're allowing ourselves in the US to head toward a dystopian, Lord of the Flies, future if we continue to support the massive success at the top while the median US person continues to lose ground and the bottom quintile merely survives. And I don't think it's gotten any easier to be a successful entrepreneur over the last 30+ years while this has happened. To paraphrase Will Rogers, money trickles up, but at least let it pass through the poor fellows hands. My concern as opposed to some on the board is that our social disrespect of the poorest 20% of Americans is causing us to throw away many great people before they have any chance. We increasingly prefer incarceration to education for the poor and culturally deprived.

To get back to my original reason for responding to your post, I don't agree that it's unfortunate that we are identifying the problem. I don't think it's clear that we agree that there is a problem and in any community, if the problem is not well defined the solution will likely just make things worse.

[lektrode]

Re: Visit the right places--change your tune

EJ has a really distorted view of what life is like being poor and unprivileged in the United States. I don't think he has ever lived it or been around it truly. It invades every part of you. It becomes you. You don't see these great or grand opportunities that America supposedly has. You are trapped because you don't know any other life. You hope for a better future, but you don't see any avenue where you can make it happen. Being poor for a long time can really transform your ability to see a way out. And once you can't see a way out, then you are not going anywhere.

Being poor isn't just about the deprivation of things. It begins to hurt you mentally after a while and it is not something you can easily overcome. It is a disease of the mind and should be recognized as such.

my dear mr juju - YOU need to get outa yer rut, sir.

you said you are working in construction - what sort, may i ask?

[BadJuju]

Re: Visit the right places--change your tune

If you are growing up there your school is going to suck. You will worry more about avoiding being a victim than about finishing some assignment. And you are going to be influenced by the people around you. We all are. A few manage to transcend it. But most don't. The families there could not afford the little house in the posh Massachusetts suburb.

EJ has a really distorted view of what life is like being poor and unprivileged in the United States. I don't think he has ever lived it or been around it truly. It invades every part of you. It becomes you. You don't see these great or grand opportunities that America supposedly has. You are trapped because you don't know any other life. You hope for a better future, but you don't see any avenue where you can make it happen. Being poor for a long time can really transform your ability to see a way out. And once you can't see a way out, then you are not going anywhere.

Being poor isn't just about the deprivation of things. It begins to hurt you mentally after a while and it is not something you can easily overcome. It is a disease of the mind and should be recognized as such.

[Polish_Silver]

Visit the right places--change your tune

And if you are broke you have welfare and food stamps, not to live like a king but you will not starve. America is the Socialist dream but better because you can opt-out. What more do people here want than this? I don't understand it."

About 15 years ago I did a ride along with a policeman in San Jose. The police divide up the patrol regions so that each car intersects the same amount of crime. He showed me the map and he was patrolling the smallest district, therefore the highest crime density. The neighborhood was overwhelmingly hispanic, with some african-americans and asians thrown in.

He told me that virtually every adolescent male is involved in a street gang. He would not explain what the gangs do. But you could see them along the sidewalks. He stopped a few times to converse with boys he knew. I was impressed at the rapoire that a white policeman could achieve with these hispanic juveniles.

If you are growing up there your school is going to suck. You will worry more about avoiding being a victim than about finishing some assignment. And you are going to be influenced by the people around you. We all are. A few manage to transcend it. But most don't. The families there could not afford the little house in the posh Massachusetts suburb.

Worse yet, for many years California held classes in Spainish, so that immigrant children never learned english. (Bilingual education it was called, but it was really "spainish only" education---great way to create a permanent underclass)

In other countries the variation in public schools would not be so great.
But you could not get into those countries by just walking across the border.

The "immigration freedom" and "equality" are working against each other.
Fortunately, we have far more hispanic immigrants than Hispanic underclass.

I think if we don't control our borders we will always have an underclass.
Automation and globalization have taken away the low and moderately skilled jobs that uneducated immigrants used to get.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think - Americans widely believed fallacies

. . .

My wife ran into a older Asian gentleman who explained that his culture believes in making children work really hard at school was a natural out growth in his cultures belief that it is important for children to suffer as children, so they will not suffer as adults.

Interestingly, most of my American born jewish friends were brought up in environments that are strikingly similar to first generation well educated immigrants from India, China, Korea, or Japan (I'm sure I'm leaving out a couple).

I know a couple that the wife is from Siberia and the husband is from India. Both the husband and wife had been required to go to school on Saturdays while they were children, today in America Saturday classes only happen at the Elite boarding schools (Lawrenceviile, Choate, etc). In Government run and union controlled public schools saturday morning classes are decades away.

Many of these well educated immigrants may not live it a Lexington-Ma, but their value placed on school results in children who do their homework, come to school prepared, and their school work is closely monitored by parents. The parents do not leave education up to the teachers or free public schools, they are constantly working to do better at school.

The well educated immigrant never talks of fairness as they have seen more of the world than most native born Americans and they don't expect fairness.

. . .

I cannot get fairness by complaining. But as voters, we should strive for a more fair system.

I don't believe children should be made to suffer, or that good education requires much suffering. Finland has better schools than the US and less homework. Piling on homework means the teacher can't possibly grade it meaningfully. I do agree that parents should be involved in the education process. In this country parents are involved with after school sports---a huge obsession which is absent in the countries you mention.

The sports are a huge cost in money and effort and need to be cut way back.

[BK]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think - Americans widely believed fallacies

In my travels I've discover how distorted the American belief in equality and what has value. None of the educated immigrants that I encounter have an expectation of fairness, but they have huge expectations for their children and what they expect from them.

My wife ran into a older Asian gentleman who explained that his culture believes in making children work really hard at school was a natural out growth in his cultures belief that it is important for children to suffer as children, so they will not suffer as adults.

Interestingly, most of my American born jewish friends were brought up in environments that are strikingly similar to first generation well educated immigrants from India, China, Korea, or Japan (I'm sure I'm leaving out a couple).

I know a couple that the wife is from Siberia and the husband is from India. Both the husband and wife had been required to go to school on Saturdays while they were children, today in America Saturday classes only happen at the Elite boarding schools (Lawrenceviile, Choate, etc). In Government run and union controlled public schools saturday morning classes are decades away.

Many of these well educated immigrants may not live it a Lexington-Ma, but their value placed on school results in children who do their homework, come to school prepared, and their school work is closely monitored by parents. The parents do not leave education up to the teachers or free public schools, they are constantly working to do better at school.

The well educated immigrant never talks of fairness as they have seen more of the world than most native born Americans and they don't expect fairness.

Interesting, many of the same cultures that get the value of education also are more likely to see the value of Gold as a means of savings, while native born Americans are less likely to see the value of Gold.

[EJ]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I know better than to argue with a man in his own house, EJ. And as ever, I appreciate your candor.

It may be my house but I learn more from all of you in it than you can ever learn from me.

Disagreement is encouraged.

The only hard and fast rule is mutual respect.

I wish the reality of social mobility in America was as positive as you portray it, but the latest data is not as promising. I am always enthusiastic about questioning frameworks of debate and am curious as to what alternate framework you've developed. But I don't think anyone on the thread has questioned the efficacy of the free market or offered a defense of any Marxist dogma.

Not Marxist dogma rather the echo of an ancient and outdated philosophical dichotomy.

Labor vs Capital.

Try to run a successful value-add business today without competitively reimbursed intellectual capital.

Good luck.

Who's the labor and who's the capital?

The lines are blurred beyond recognition.

I agree that social and economic mobility is largely a matter of family and culture. Culture and family are the most significant critical factor for economic success, yes. But which culture and which families is something we need to define with clarity.

Watch for the cop-out pronoun "we" so favored by social scientists. It is a red flag in any argument about public policy as it obscures the heart of any public policy debate: Who is accountable to whom and why?

It is human nature to seek the best for oneself and those one loves and the rest, if any, for the rest to go to various flavors of "other" in an order of precedence roughly as family, tribe, community, and nation, depending over time on the relative contribution of each to one's personal wealth and safety.

There is no "we" to decide by any government process which is the best culture, there is only the evidence before the individual and family and the willingness of one to say, "Our way in this respect doesn't work so let's adopt this way of this other culture that does work while keeping the best of ours."

The anecdotes and personal stories you share are inspiring, yet would you agree that a qualitative difference exists between your neighbor choosing to live in a modest home near feeder schools to Harvard versus that of my friend's neighbor scrimping in Durham to get junior into NCCU. Yes, parents need to make good decisions for their kids. Kids need to make good decisions for themselves. Hard to disagree. Yet no one on the thread demanded that the state enforce equal outcomes, only that the good outcomes not be so colossally disparate and available to so few.

But the colossally disparity of starting points in the race to the unfinished have less and less to do with the State and more to do with the reality that so many are being left in the dust due to misguided duty to dysfunctional families and cultures.

No one disputes that opportunities are available here for those with the ability to seize them. This is especially true in terms of the dynamism of our immigrants.

There you have it. The unfair advantage. The ability to know when to leave and where to go and how to do it and the guts to take action.

The U.S. has selected for those with this ability for generations.

I don't believe anyone here is demanding perfect fairness. I believe the general demand, if it could be called that, is that less special treatment and advantage be delivered to a class who by virtue of culture and family already possess the necessary qualities for economic success, not to mention the largest share (ever) of capital and political power.

This is a vexing systemic limitation of the political economy that likely can only be solved by constitutional amendment. "It is human nature to seek the best for oneself and those one loves." Amplify this through the technocratic institutions of the central bank and legislature and judicatory and you have a serious mess in the making.

[vinoveri]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Well spoken, jk. I appreciate it. I don't share your prediction about inequality, however. I think you'll see it peak going into the next recession. Maybe then it will subside. All that depends on chance and politics. But we'll see. In the meanwhile, the great neoliberal project moves full bore ahead. Nozick and Greenspan may have gotten somewhat apologetic in their old age. But I think it will take another shock before the bulk of the turkeys come home to roost.

Agree that we not at peak inequality and I don't see iin even on the horizon unless policy shifts to reduce tax on labor and increase tax on "capital" gains that are generated from leverage based on money created ex nihilo. As long as the banking cartel and its minions are continued to be given carte blanche to run roughshod over the law and access to "fiat capital" is limited and centralized, inequality will only increase imo.

[Southernguy]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Incredible post, EJ. I anticipate that future generations and philosophers will marvel at many of your thoughts and posts on many topics (likely more so than some of the contemporary psuedo-intellectual debaters on this site and elsewhere). Even your patience and continued participation in the forums is admirable. It continually shocks me when members complain about the cost of premium membership and/or the low volume of articles. In my humble opinion, the value of your wisdom and insight is the best value I have ever encoutered in my 52 years and am likely to ever encounter again in my lifetime. Thank you for continuing to provide this opportunity.

I clearly disagree on that (what EJ is saying). Marx did not bother to talk about social mobility. In his analyisis the origin of an individual capitalist was of no interest. The same mattered to the social origin of a labourer.
The important issue was relations between social classes.
Marx on the one way stressed the progressive aspect of capitalism against feudalism. On the other way it signaled the inherent injustice of all systems (including capitalism, of course) in which a certain class of individuals and their families (irrespective of their social origin) would hold the right to appropriate the economic suprplus. The latter is only produced by workers through their action on the means of production.
So the social and economic model proposed by Marx was one in which no one would be awarded more than the mean salary or a qualified worker.
No one would be allowed to own means of production.
Directors, as well as public servants, no matter their relevance would not get more than the said mean salary of a qualified worker.
Don't think Marx would ask for or accept anybod's "pardon" for thinking as he did.
Anyway, even if it is quite difficult to quantify social mobility in Marx's time, it is absolutely sure that there was some.
As for social mobility in the USA, a rapid search produced the following material.
Another study finds a close correlation between social inmobility and inequality. The larger de latter, the smaller social mobility.
Very unequal Latin American countries, Peru and Brazil are quoted, have lower social mobility.
No surprises here.


"Social mobility is the movement of individuals or groups in social position.^[1][2] It may refer to classes, ethnic groups, or entire nations, and may measure health status, literacy, or education — but more commonly it refers to individuals or families, and their change in income (economic mobility).^[1] It also typically refers to vertical mobility—movement of individuals or groups up (or down) from one socio-economic level to another, often by changing jobs or marriage; but can also refer to horizontal mobility—movement from one position to another within the same social level.

Social mobility can be the change in status between someone (or a group) and their parents/previous family generations ("inter-generational"); or over the change during one's lifetime ("intra-generational"). It can be "absolute"—i.e. total amount of movement of people between classes, usually over one generation (such as when education and economic development raises the socio-economic level of a population); or "relative"—an estimation of the chance of upward (or downward) social mobility of a member of one social class in comparison with a member from another class.^[3] A higher level of intergenerational mobility is often considered a sign of greater fairness, or equality of opportunity, in a society.^[4]
Mobility is enabled to a varying extent by economic capital, cultural capital (such as higher education), human capital (such as competence and effort in labour), social capital (such as support from one's social network), physical capital (such as ownership of tools, or the 'means of production'), and symbolic capital (such as the worth of an official title, status class, celebrity, etc.).
Contents

• 1 Inter- and Intra-generational mobility
  • 1.1 Head-start assets
  • 1.2 Effects of government spending on intergenerational mobility
  • 1.3 Industrialization
  
  
• 2 Absolute and relative mobility
• 3 Rules of status: ascription and achievement
• 4 Structural and exchange mobility
• 5 Upward and downward mobility
• 6 Country comparison
• 7 Class cultures and networks
• 8 Social system
• 9 Symbols and social mobility
  • 9.1 Social science and understanding segmentation
  • 9.2 An urban planning perspective on group boundaries
  • 9.3 How sociology views neighborhood boundaries
  • 9.4 Influences that cross multiple boundaries
  
  
• 10 See also
• 11 References
• 12 Further reading
• 13 External links

Inter- and Intra-generational mobility

Intra-generational mobility ("within" a generation) is defined as change in social status over a single life-time. Inter-generational mobility ("across" generations) is defined as changes in social status that occur from the parents' to the children's generation.^[5]
Inter-generational mobility is generally measured in terms of intergenerational elasticity, or a statistical correlation between parent’s and children’s economic standings. The higher the intergenerational elasticity, the less social mobility a society offers. The higher the intergenerational elasticity, the more of a role childhood upbringing plays when compared to individual talents and capabilities.^[6]
The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal published a series of front-page articles on this issue in May 2005.^[7] Americans have often seen their country as a ‘land of opportunity’ where anyone can succeed despite his background. A study performed by economists at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2009 found that Britain and the United States have the lowest levels of intergenerational mobility, or the highest levels of intergenerational persistence. The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) and Canada tend to have high rates of social mobility. Norway proved to be the most mobile society.^{[8] "}

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Well spoken, jk. I appreciate it. I don't share your prediction about inequality, however. I think you'll see it peak going into the next recession. Maybe then it will subside. All that depends on chance and politics. But we'll see. In the meanwhile, the great neoliberal project moves full bore ahead. Nozick and Greenspan may have gotten somewhat apologetic in their old age. But I think it will take another shock before the bulk of the turkeys come home to roost.

[jk]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

great thread, great discussion- some friction for sure, but mostly mutual respect. i'm also impressed by the range of experience and education demonstrated here. we're quite the group! unfortunately, we're so much better at identifying the problems than finding solutions.

some historical trends are likely to ameliorate the problem. the financial sector in the s&p grew to a size comparable to that attained by the materials sector in the late 1970's. that proportion is starting to shrink: these things tend to be mean reverting. the american worker has been getting killed by the global labor arbitrage. but globalization is past its peak and so this phenomenon is likely to subside. technology has been destroying jobs, too, of course, while creating some others. these transitions are always ugly, i think. what happened to ned ludd's fellow weavers? and what happened to all the agricultural workers who were displaced by the reaper and the combine? most were able to move to cities and find work, some didn't adjust as well. as manufacturaing was hollowed out there were increasing slots in the service economy, but most were pretty crappy. there is a cohort of long-term unemployed, many of whom are older workers, who will never have another job. their jobs disappeared, other- new- jobs will appear but will be filled by younger workers. in looking at population outcomes, it never hurts to remember that behind each distribution is a set of individuals. one outcome may look comparable or better than another over the population [e.g. the craftsy weaving jobs disappeared but there were new, higher productivity, industrial weaving jobs], but different individuals win or lose under each scenario.

someone shared a recent piece by ray dalio with me- dalio thinks we're about 1/4 of the way through a secular deleveraging cycle, with just about all the risk to the downside. the fed can withdraw stimulus only very gently if at all, at the risk of crashing the economy. otoh, it's not clear whether more qe can have any positive effect, nor is it clear what other tools the fed might come up with. dalio thinks the deleveraging has been "beautiful" so far, by which he means the pain and losses have been spread around. of course, dalio is a multi-billionaire and that might be affecting his perspective.

perhaps we're close to, or even past, the peak of inequality. is it worse now than it was in the 1920's? a quick google search says no, it's not worse than the '20's, just comparable to the 20's. of course we know how that worked out.

on a more personal note, i found myself really touched, moved, by some of the stories of our own members here. [and remember this is a pretty functional group]. i really wish the best for everyone here. as i look back on the hardest times in my own life, more emotional than material it happens, they are also the times that i think i learned the most, grew the most. your pain is your tuition; you might as well get an education.

i do some giving at the end of each year, and this year for the first time made a donation to a traditional kind of charity - a food bank - instead of just the environmental, preservation or cultural or educational institutions i've favored in the past. [not that i give away so much money- i don't want to mislead people or misrepresent myself here.] anyway, my point here is that i was so offended by the cuts in the food stamp program that i felt i had to do something, a bit. i don't agree with margaret thatcher's position that there is no such thing as society. we evolved in the setting of small social groups, communities or troops. we are social animals. the issue is how far we extend the lines of connection.

[i'll add for you, woodsman, that i thought nozick's anarchy, state, utopia was brilliantly, almost mathematically, argued but kind of laughable in saying - in an early footnote iirc!- that historical atrocities and injustices were impossible to untangle, so he would just ignore them and blithely proceed with his analysis. i think his later, more mature, writing on ethics in philisophical explanations were ultimately more illuminating, or at least more to my taste.]

[rjwjr]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I question the antiquated framework of the social policy debate on economic equality, set as Labor vs Capital. It's a holdover from an era of slow technological innovation and highly limited social and economic mobility.

In Marx's time the chance of any young man or woman starting life as Labor and later in life becoming part of the Capitalist class, per the Marxian conceptions, was so remote as to be irrelevant from the perspective of his analysis of the political economy, yet such is common if not typical today, at least among certain cultural groups. In Marx's day if you were born to a family of laborers then a laborer you would be, too, and if you were born to wealth and privilege then you were forged from birth a Capitalist, so he can be forgiven for conceiving of the conflict between economic classes as between two immutable populations sets. As for the class aspiring to rise from one to the other Marx was contemptuous, referring to them as the Petite Bourgeoisie.

In the United States and a few other countries today social and economic mobility is largely a matter of family and culture, outside the control of the State.

Speaking for a moment from personal experience, I started my working life as a tech wiring and soldering circuit boards for a few dollars an hour and now spend a good amount of my time investing in and helping start-up companies. I had no inheritance to speak of when my parents passed away when I was in my 30s. What I did have was the luck of intelligence, health, education, and culture, some of which are hereditary advantages and others a factors of family and culture.

No matter what it does the State can never compensate for the poor distribution of these advantages among all citizens. It can endeavor to improve by law better equality of opportunity but anything the State tries to do to create equality of result inevitably backfires.

Among the critical factors for economic success culture and family are clearly now the most significant but still the least discussed, despite the clear evidence of this all around us.

A family from China moved in down the street from us during the housing downturn. Prices didn't go down much here but did somewhat and they timed their purchase to the downturn. The house is small, maybe 1500 square feet, with two bedrooms and one bathroom, swamp behind it and power lines beside it. I don't know exactly how many people live there but by rough count there are the mother and father, three kids, and at least one grand parent living in the home. They could have purchased a larger home on a larger and less modest lot in the neighboring town. But what the little house by the power line lacks for amenities it makes up for in one aspect of its location that was of primary importance to the family: proximity to one of the best elementary schools in the country. From there their children can attend to one of the best high schools, and after that be in a good position to get into MIT or Harvard. By moving into the cramped house they know that when their kids grow up they will be well educated, and speak without with an accent and vocabulary that instantly identifies them as part of the educated class. With that they have a ticket to a well paying profession or not, if they so choose.

The upper hand that they will have over the native-born kids the next town over, advantages that will serve them all of their lives, will be entirely due to decisions made by their parents, which decisions are a factor largely of culture. They will have nothing to do with the State.

When I speak with immigrants from Russia or India or China or virtually anywhere in the world they invariably express their confusion at hearing the complaints by native-born Americans about the unfairness of the American economy, as indicated by the fact that some are wealthy while others are poor.

A friend's Russian girlfriend put it to me this way -- paraphrasing. I asked her what she thought of economic inequality in America. Rolling her eyes, she said "All this whining and complaining. 'It's not fair that these guys have so little and these other guys have so much.' In my country as a woman I had no opportunities to advance myself. To even want to advance yourself was bad and unladylike. Your family history, race, religion, gender, accent... all of these narrow you down there. Here no one cares, or, well, not nearly so much. Here your boss cares what you can do for him. Promise results and deliver and it does not matter if you're a woman or African or what you are. If you fail you get to try again! Start over! And if you are broke you have welfare and food stamps, not to live like a king but you will not starve. America is the Socialist dream but better because you can opt-out. What more do people here want than this? I don't understand it."

Incredible post, EJ. I anticipate that future generations and philosophers will marvel at many of your thoughts and posts on many topics (likely more so than some of the contemporary psuedo-intellectual debaters on this site and elsewhere). Even your patience and continued participation in the forums is admirable. It continually shocks me when members complain about the cost of premium membership and/or the low volume of articles. In my humble opinion, the value of your wisdom and insight is the best value I have ever encoutered in my 52 years and am likely to ever encounter again in my lifetime. Thank you for continuing to provide this opportunity.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

In the meanwhile, Lek, it's interesting to look at the studies on depression, suicide, and income inequality. I've seen studies from sources as diverse as the Boston Fed and the National Institutes of Health that correlate wider income inequality with higher suicide rates for both rich and poor people. They can find this in state-by-state, country-by-country, and neighborhood-by-neighborhood patterns. Some (less well documented) studies find ditto with depression rates.

And there's a whole range of behavioral economic work that shows people become increasingly loss-averse the more unequal their neighborhood or surroundings. Put simply, people start behaving irrationally in defense of what they have, and even give up better options when they present themselves, the more unequal their neighborhoods are. Human happiness, as opposed to GDP, seems to be about relative income and relative wealth (plenty of studies support this too). It doesn't even matter if you have a very high income floor to alleviate poverty. If things are very unequal, and you're at the bottom, your neighbors will look down upon you, and what's more, they'll fear they'll become you. And this effect seems to get worse the less equal things become.

All-in-all it shouldn't be surprising. Take any pack animal, split the pack up, give sixty cows to one of them, nothing to others, and a cup of kibble to most. Make them all watch it go down. They're going to get neurotic. That's NYC in a nutshell.