Book: The Price of Inequality

Just started Joseph Stiglitz's 2012 book, at Jenni's suggestion.  It's been on my "to read" shelf for the better part of a year.

I was rather startled (to say the least) to find the author made a huge, and amateurish error already on page 10.  He's discussing the plight of the working poor, talking about a family of four living on wages of $8.50/hr, which works out to $16,640/yr.*  His employer charges him $200/mo for insurance, bringing his take-home pay to $14,240.  Rent is $700/mo, leaving $5,840 for everything else all year long.

He mentions a car could cost $3000/yr, leaving $2,840 for food/clothing/bills/entertainment.  So far so good.

Skip two paragraphs where he talks about social safety nets, then Stiglitz takes up his theoretical family again.  He mentions daycare for two kids averages $1,433/mo, "half of what our family has left over."

Oops.  He mixed up "per month" with "per year" -- it's apparent he's never lived in poverty!  Paid daycare is an unimaginable luxury for most poor people.



* - Not by MY math! And where's the income tax in this?

I don't know how that error makes it evident that the man never lived in poverty, but it certainly is a silly mistake. Could have been an editor (or an extra brandy).

Stieglitz is talking about how much more egalitarian other countries are, like for instance Sweden.

Sweden has socialized healthcare, and very little institutional poverty. The gap between the very rich and the very poor is much smaller than in the US. Their taxes are also much higher to pay for this.

I believe their laws about immigration are also very strict. Nobody gets unemployment or medical care without being a citizen and paying taxes.

If the US were to move in that direction, not just one or two but several basic tenets of our society would have to be altered at the same time.

True, but look at how many basic tenets of our society have changed since 1980.
This is a very different country than the one in which I grew up. And I don't like it.

Meh, losing interest.

Stiglitz uses that annoying professorial tactic of telling you what he's going to tell you, then telling you, then telling you what he just told you. It may work for bored college students but in a book it's just padding.

And so far there hasn't been anything not obvious.

Okay after a second valiant attempt I'm officially giving up on Stiglitz. He hasn't raised one issue in the first hundred pages that wasn't blazingly obvious, and he's done it in the most condescending and professorial manner. A whole lot of padding for a pamphlet's worth of argument. As soon as he started chapter two with "as we proved in chapter one" I started skimming. Doesn't look like it gets any better.

NoCoPilot wrote:

He hasn't raised one issue in the first hundred pages that wasn't brazingly obvious,...

Obvious to you and many others, but there is a huge segment of the population to whom all of it would come as a big surprise.

_Howard wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

He hasn't raised one issue in the first hundred pages that wasn't brazingly obvious,...

Obvious to you and many others, but there is a huge segment of the population to whom all of it would come as a big surprise.

Yeah, unfortunately the people who need to read the stuff rarely do.

Jenni wrote:

Yeah, unfortunately the people who need to read the stuff rarely do.

In most cases, I think it's that they can't read it.

I can't get over a slight feeling of stupidity now, lol. I mean I found the book a little repetitive but I sort of needed that.   

Think nothing more about it. I've read a dozen similar books in the past two years. I'm overexposed.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Think nothing more about it.  I've read a dozen similar books in the past two years.  I'm overexposed.

It's ok. There are certain topics I just have a hard time with. Economics, science, sometimes I do have to read a page or paragraph over again to process what I read. I'll live.