How equal do we want the world to be? You'd be surprised | Dan Ariely

The news of society's growing inequality makes all of us uneasy. But why? Dan Ariely reveals some new, surprising research on what we think is fair, as far as how wealth is distributed over societies ... then shows how it stacks up to the real stats.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_h...
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector

[@praveenvijeyakumar741]

"A just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you'd be willing to enter it in a random place." This is an amazing quote, one that I'm probably going to remember for the rest of my life.

[@efrud612]

Well, that's John Rawls Thought experiment, you might want to check that out

[@hooplehead1019]

Well, you are on to something, Praveen: "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls in which you find this thought, was voted the most influential political justice theory of the 20th century in a large survey of politics university professors in the US.

[@EgypTPHONIX]

Consumption inequality is a better indicator of economic injustice than wealth inequality in my opinion .

[@MadDark98]

It turns out that 12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5% of the income distribution, 56% will find themselves in the top 10%, and a whopping 73% will spend a year in the top 20% of the income distribution. Yet while many Americans will experience some level of affluence during their lives, a much smaller percentage of them will do so for an extended period of time. Although 12% of the population will experience a year in which they find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution, a mere 0.6% will do so in 10 consecutive years. One of the reasons for such fluidity at the top is that, over sufficiently long periods of time, most American households go through a wide range of economic experiences, both positive and negative. Individuals we interviewed spoke about hitting a particularly prosperous period where they received a bonus, or a spouse entered the labor market, or there was a change of jobs. These are the types of events that can throw households above particular income thresholds. It is clear that the image of a static 1 and 99 percent is largely incorrect. The majority of Americans will experience at least one year of affluence at some point during their working careers. (This is just as true at the bottom of the income distribution scale, where 54% of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at least once between the ages of 25 and 60). Ultimately, this information suggests that the United States is indeed a land of opportunity, that the American dream is still possible - but that it is also a land of widespread poverty. And rather than being a place of static, income-based social tiers, America is a place where a large majority of people will experience either wealth or poverty - or both - during their lifetimes. Rather than talking about the 1 percent and the 99 percent as if they were forever fixed, it would make much more sense to talk about the fact that Americans are likely to be exposed to both prosperity and poverty during their lives, and to shape our policies accordingly. As such, we have much more in common with one another than we dare to realize.

[@Ndo01]

Dan is my favourite speaker ever, it's been too long since his last talk!

[@ignoreance]

Dan Ariely.. always conjuring up an incredible and realistic study about ourselves and the society around us. Truly a remarkable man.

[@noflexzone2.055]

sad that it is all false :(

[@j.d.blitch5552]

This video needs more views. Dan Ariely is a beast, always has something fascinating to say

[@confrantzeskos]

One of the key questions rarely addressed is not so much about inequality, but the ease of economic mobility. I may be poor, but if I can, with education, hard work and good choices, rapidly improve my wealth, then surely that's a more important measure than inequality (which seems a static measure). Would love to see more data about mobility, rather than inequality.

[@joshuamorrison8332]

What if you also require a measure of opportunity, or luck? Also inequality is anything but static. That is kind of the whole point. Very wealthy people in this system literally cannot lose. They increase their fraction of the wealth simply by the virtue of having wealth. They don't have to innovate or take chances with investments. They just get a good fund manager and wait. Liberals aren't Marxists. It is completely pragmatic to state the obvious. If nothing is done then this will end in disaster.

[@TheUnfriendlyfire]

@@joshuamorrison8332 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation and 90% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the 3rd generation. So wealthy people lose all the time. On the other hand, 90% of millionaires are self-made, meaning that non-wealthy people win all the time and become wealthy too.

[@joshuamorrison8332]

@@TheUnfriendlyfire If you are suggesting that we make no change to taxes or economic policy and the concentration of wealth of the top 1% will sort itself out then I disagree with you. but, fair point, many middle class and upper middle class people move up and down.

[@Warzoooooo]

Problem with looking at inequality this way is that you easily forget mobility between those groups. Chanses are that when you graduate from school, you are very likely to be at the bottom. But when you retire you have probably movved between 2 or 3 steps up at least. So the question then becomes, should everyone just get the same without regard to input? And is that any difference to what communism tried to achive? Wealth mobility is WAY more important than wealth equality. History shows us that you can only make a country equaly poor, as that is what tends to happen if you tell people they can work hard but they will not them selves benefit from that hard work.

[@wendylcs4283]

Exactly. 100 Likes.

[@strengthxphilosophy]

Loved this! There should be more talks like this!

[@jameslincs]

Strength And Philosophy I liked Dans books too. The issue I have are a) his ideas turned out to be wrong (Tim Harford was right) and b) his solutions to the “problem” of inequality are terrible and destructive, making everyone worse off. Pushing some of the poor off the edge.

[@k3nny111]

Is it just me or is the comment section getting particularly stupid when economics is discussed?

[@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122]

Videos like this tend to attract communists.

[@willmpet]

And how would you improve it?

[@xandercorp6175]

@@willmpet presumably, the first step was to see how much agreement his assessment of comment quality meets with. 4 respondents in 4 years is not promising.

[@NashHinton]

Communists, fascists. Grow up people. It doesn't matter. Fascism failed and communism failed. I'm just tired of all these dumb isms. Why can't we all just get along and do the right thing? Stop overconsuming, stop overbreeding. Let's just relax, take a chill pill and get along. Just share what you don't need to people who need it, stop worrying about the next gadget or sportscar, just get along people. Happiness doesn't come in possessions. It comes within you. Just do the right thing. Stop having babies you can't take care of. Stop being a glutton and wasting food. Just relax.

[@solar02130]

In what sense? In people thinking that inequality doesn't matter? Not understanding how supply and demand works for land which is a finite good in high demand, for instance? Is that the kind of "stupid" you are speaking about? The fact that the common people in the USA can hardly afford housing and struggle to stay afloat and that's not good? Or are you just being ideological and "commie bad" or what?

[@dudeFace99099]

Always love listening in on these and have had some deepening and changing of perspective.

[@joshuamorrison8332]

As a liberal I've wondered my whole life why so many people vote against their own interest regarding economics. I now realize that they don't know that they are voting against their own self interest financially. This is pretty shocking. I've also wondered if fellow liberals really want to divide the pie equally. This is probably the most common thing said in American politics. Also this is patently untrue. Lies man, so powerful.

[@MrHayada]

Woah, i remember this man, i took a Coursera class with him. It was great!

[@MilesMcDonald417]

Knowledge Gap: Yes Desirability Gap: Yes Wage Gap: No *Grabs Popcporn*

[@AlexandrosKenich]

The next great step towards a more equal society should be the adoption of a negative income tax as prescribed by Milton Friedman. Enlightening talk by Prof Dan Ariely.

[@mhtinla]

***** Is it like social welfare? I thought we already have it.

[@jackjofaz]

mhtinla Yes, but without welfare traps and bureaucracy.

[@amcor2000]

Does anyone know which country is the closest to this desirable wealth distribution? I kept waiting for him to talk about what it's like in other countries, maybe there's something to learn from

[@keplerskitty5949]

I....Love.....Dan....Ariely!

[@MrSlatra]

A certain amount of inequality is to be expected. The amount of inequality we now have in the US, is quickly approaching the type of thing that has led other countries to revolt against their governments and/or kidnap the wealthy for a ransom. Add to this level of inequality the manner in which our justice system works best if you have unlimited money and works worst when you are poor. If you can't pay traffic fines because you don't make enough money to pay them and keep your family fed, clothed and with a roof over their head, you will be forced to sit in jail instead. This only makes thing worse for poor people that find themselves in this situation. It's not a hypothetical situation. It's reality for too many of the bottom 40%. On the other hand, if you have enough money you can hire lawyers capable of getting you out of just about any conviction. After BP spilled 200-million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, they filed suit and won the right to continue drilling in US territories... Despite the majority of the clean-up being paid for by American Tax Payers. Lawyers are capable of some really fantastic/terrible things, if you have enough money. If you have enough money you can get policies written into law, inside the Us, that favor your business interests. You can even have those policies paid for by the public. Such large scale inequality only leads to crime, on both ends of the monetary spectrum.

[@mindfulskills]

"Socialism" (5:10) is not characterized by "full equality," but simply by governments leveraging the buy on programs that benefit their citizens. Virtually all advanced economies (including titularly "communist" ones, like the PRC) are "mixed," having both free market and socialistic elements. Even the most extreme so-called socialist countries, like North Korea, practice inequality based on ideological purity, loyalty and service to the leader cult.

[@abelsoo5465]

North Korea is de facto a kingdom ruled by the House of Kim.

[@belginruzgar6130]

Başlıkta Fred Jansen yazıyor.Oysa başlık :"Dan Ariely: Dünyanın ne kadar eşit olmasını istiyoruz?" olmalıydı.

[@Alphfirm]

Great talk - I would've liked him to speek more about possible ways to solve the problem though.

[@shippey321]

Solve what? How the rich willingly give wealth away? Good luck.

[@wendylcs4283]

sometimes there is no solution to a" problem", we just have to learn to tolerate and/or adapt.

[@gardgulbrandsen6327]

5:10 Sosialism does not mean everyone have equaly much, that's theoretical comunism. sosialism want everyone to pay (taxes and such) to such an extent that everyone have what they need. sosialism what to achive what most people think is ideal, the what we want bar.

[@belginruzgar6130]

How equal do we want the world to be? You'd be surprised | Dan Ariely . Konuşan kişi Fred Jansen değil,konuşma konusu da Bir kuyruklu yıldıza nasıl inilir değil.Hatalı başlık ve hatalı konuşmacı ismi çıkuyor nedense. Düzeltir misiniz lütfen.

[@RealWorldGames]

Keep in mind how easily polling information can be manipulated. Pre polling allows you to exclude answers you don't want.

[@Alorand]

Ask the question this way: How much of YOUR OWN wealth are you willing to give away to insure that there is less inequality in the world?

[@BasPronk]

Good one. I find a lot of truth in the saying : if you want to know what is really important to someone, look at what they spend their time and money on.

[@mohamednofal5256]

i don't have much so i am willing to give everything.

[@soonny002]

Or rather... How much of your own wealth you're willing to give to a homeless person? How much of your own wealth you're willing to give to a billionaire? And how much of your own wealth are you willing to throw into the ether? Who you give it to matters. Just saying you're giving it to the WORLD means nothing because the world has poor people and billionaires. The reason why nobody wants to give away wealth is because they don't trust where it ends up. And because of that, they get nothing in return. No information, no satisfaction, nothing. Think about this: If you gave away $100 to an organisation and that organisation promises to track exactly where that money ends up and how that money affects the people it ends up with, would you still give it away? Even just for curiosity? I would.

[@BasPronk]

@@soonny002 www.kiva.org . Let us know how much you gave :-)

[@soonny002]

@@BasPronk WoW! Thanks! :) :)

[@geoplaten337]

People want everyone ELSE to be equal. They want themselves above.

[@Hombolicious]

It was a good talk, shame it was so short. Felt like he explained up to the knowledge gap well but didn't quite explain an important point that as more and more people change, their preferences / ideas/ beliefs (which effects their actions) towards a certain goal, the larger the influence on the rest of the population this goal becomes. So to implement change you need a collective change in consciousness towards a certain ideal or result. For this specific talk "wealth inequality" . I feel as though I've just explained some basic truth to do with mankind. Though I can see there being more than one way to change. I.e. Wealth.

[@isaacdarche7103]

Do I understand loss aversion correctly? You would have to offer an alternative that is 2.5 times better than the status quo for us to switch, right?

[@charless607]

I'm actually really irritated by this video because I feel I've seen these points on inequality be explained and analyzed a thousand times, but again with no suggestion on what change must occur to improve life for all

[@olofm9659]

***** Uhhh. I i'm not a hundred on where i stand i politics but i know that a lot of socialism has failed but there are a lot of socialistic counties that are good, Sweden has for example always been really socialistic/left in politiks and it is one of the counties with the most equality.

[@olofm9659]

***** How do you relate rape and left va right?

[@olofm9659]

Vs*

[@olofm9659]

Also Sweden has made it so that more things are considered as rape than in other European countries. In a studie done by an organisation that does studies nationally and dies not consider what is rape in that country Sweden was placed below a lot of European countries such as Denmark and Norway. Also due to Sweden gender equality a higher percentage of all rapes are reported.

[@brunon.8962]

Charles Shilling Basic Income

[@yinYangMountain]

Dan Ariely rules!

[@mindprism]

Take the top 0.5 percent out of the top 20% and then run the numbers.

[@unvergebeneid]

I don't think the video is going to change no matter how convincing you are in your comment. I'm afraid you're going to have to tell us your insights yourself.

[@HigherPlanes]

Penny Lane He's probably thinking of the top 2% who own 80% of the wealth or something along those lines. The obscenely wealthy who not only own a dozen or two dozen mansions around the world but also own whole islands, entire land masses... yet seem to be plauged by misery, and force misery on everyone else on the planet. Imagination is the true ground of being, not wealth.

[@sttate]

HigherPlanes I find it hard to believe such people are miserable. I don't find it hard to believe that's that what you want to think, though.

[@HigherPlanes]

gnihton Are you saying that most people aren't miserable?

[@sttate]

HigherPlanes That isn't relevant at all.

[@jordanthomas4379]

In terms of equality of opportunity, absolutely YES. In terms of equality of outcome, absolutely NOT.

[@lazygamerz]

Trick with Guinness is to drink through the foam, aka "head", not slurp the foam first. Most of the bitterness remains in the foam at the bottom of the glass then. New glass (or wash the glass with cold water), then add more Guinness (slightly below room temperature, some tryhards say room temperature is best but just a tad below room temperature is much more refreshing and doesn't remove any taste).

[@HigherPlanes]

How is Miller Lite beer? That should be in the same category as cat piss

[@kronosaraya]

Liking this video with my feet, cause I'm using my hands to clap!

[@alexboston343]

My definition of a just society: Where everyone has equal accessibility to good education. Where everyone has the opportunity to get a job which can support their individual needs, their family doesn't matter. This is my utopia, if everyone has the ability to become a CEO through equal education then there is no excuse for failure, it's your fault and not the governments responsibility to support you. The decision to have children should be taken on the notion that you're able to afford them, blind fucking and expecting money off of the government is immoral and irresponsible. Everything else should be left to capitalism with slight policing to ensure there is no monopoly. This is my perfect society, governed by the principles of equality of opportunity.

[@solar02130]

Well that's not good. If you have A CHANCE no matter how small to become rich and yet most likely will be poor then it's a really sick society.

[@solar02130]

That's also economic class based eugenics.

[@solar02130]

That's pretty much the dystopia we live in now. It's wrong and really bad and your standing for it?

[@brunon.8962]

Basic Income is needed to avoid a violent revolution.

[@Cjeska]

Bruno Nuñez Karl Marx called, he wants his 19th century rhetoric back.

[@Cjeska]

***** I'm talking about his claim that people will start a "violent revolution" if not given their "fair share". That's marxist wishful thinking. Didn't happen back then, won't happen now, especially since the poorest today have higher living standards than the richest back then.

[@godeketime]

Michael Haimerl The violent revolution has already begun. It has been going for some time now, it just isn't in the Wealthy West. Instead, it is burning in the globally poorest countries. And like most revolutions, it has been co-opted by those seeking power, turning the anger of the poor against their situation and directing it into civil wars where the poor fight the poor, like the pawns that the poor always have been and probably always will be. Here in the West, most have never seen the actual poor people of the world. Well, perhaps in a commercial for charities...

[@Atilla_the_Fun]

***** There are countries other than America. Many of non American citizens are NOT happy.

[@jaymthegenius]

godeketime Like in those tax-free fortified factories in China and the Philippines where they're told no smiling and work over 12 hours a day and have no rights and need ID to get in and out? Export zones fucking suck and need to be revolted against. The governments over there don't care, otherwise it'd be great if the Chinese government could crack down on them and actually stick up for their people.

[@brikimbran]

Honest question: Aren't you just looking at the outcomes of an economic machine and extracting a sense of injustice from it. Even if I never had the chance to become part of the one percent, does that mean I'm discriminated against? The fact is, without the 1% the other income/wealth brackets would mostly collapse into one homogeneous destitute group.

[@TheLaughingDove]

Those 1% subsist off the actions of the 99% though. If they fell, the 1% would last a little longer on resources they already have, but they too would fall to the same homogeneous destitution in the end without society.

[@solar02130]

Wealth inequality causes land and housing to be ridiculously expensive for the less wealthy people. It's pretty simple economics --- the rich buy more land and housing and they also buy housing stock as investment to rent out or speculate. It's very simple. Greater inequality means greater cost of living in hours of wages to the common people. It's a gradual slide into wage slavery. In the USA right now we're very well into wage slavery for half the people.

[@KiDn0cuDi]

How many think the last one would work? How many think it would take a long time to implement?

[@user-wp8yx]

Can somebody translate Daniel Jafri's comment?

[@KiAb0n0V]

What question is this."Equal" means equal. You cannot be more equal or less equal.

[@NumeroSystem]

10 and 12 are more equal than 10 and 25.

[@AdamCHowell]

KiAb0n0V "You cannot be more equal or less equal." I'm trying to get my head around this concept... is it something like dealing with the speed of light... every value is equal... they just seem different from alternate viewpoints?... So everyone is in fact me? They just don't look like me from where I'm standing...

[@VebbGames]

Equality by definition has a mathmatical property of either 1 or 0, 1 being equal anything less than 1 being unequal nothing more than 1 because that would break the definition

[@mhtinla]

***** Both of you are right... One is an English major. The other is a Math major. That's all.

[@AdamCHowell]

Daniel Martins More equal is considered correct English whether you like it or not.

[@walterdennisclark]

Das Kapital is a book full of complaints about capitalism. There's not even one page about how socialism works. We had to let Stalin detail that for us. So it is with this excellent talk. Dan Ariely also, has pointed out the great failings of freedom. (Man, did you see those numbers on CEO pay in America? Wow.) But like Marx; not a word about the solution; how do we make humans spread out in wealth according to a "seems right" histogram? I think there's only one way: We must use force on the richer ones. And then when everyone is where they belong and no one has any reason to do unpleasant jobs, we will make them do the job they were assigned.

[@franciscoricci9924]

Marx did thing about a solution

[@SohamBhattacharya3105]

+Walter Clark If you had read The Communist Manifesto, which Marx co-authored, you'd have realized that you're suggestion of using force on the rich WAS the solution Marx had proposed.

[@walterdennisclark]

+Soham Bhattacharya , That's right; eat the rich. That was it. Not even a complete sentence. It is hardly a guide in how to go about it. That's my complaint about this video. His solution is so simple as to be useless and when given the power of the state behind it, then all the horrid and unworkable solutions are implement. Result: Venezuela.

[@pageboy1974]

​@M. Woller Surely the failure of communism is that there have been lots of communist revolutions but they always and quickly get corrupted and hijacked, and often become murderous dictatorships thereafter.

[@mittag6326]

@M. Woller ok, to say USSR wasnt communist/socialist is one thing. But to call it very capitalistic? this is clear indicator you are the one who doesn't have even superficial knowledge what makes capitalism or socialism.

[@fanzeldadaniel]

I don't know how this is going to end but I definitely can assure you this economical system will end, just like the rest did, and our descendants will look at us with the same eyes we saw slavery and servitude. We are just to chained to our own historical period, we still don't comprehend that this is not the end of history, like Fukujama claimed. Ultimately we will change, everything changes.

[@robertdabob8939]

The answer to the title question is enough equality to ensure and promote the psychological well being of the individual. Isn't that the foundation for the healthiest and sanest forms of collectivism and group identification?

[@coloradoron2296]

Interesting talk, but net, it is a subtle argument for the involuntary seizure of wealth from the few to reallocate and distribute to the many. What it fails to discuss is that in a truly free market wealth is actually a fairly accurate measure of economic value and contribution to the market place. Steve Jobs was wealthy precisely because he offered the market something that was highly valued; in exchange people freely gave Apple their cash (their measure of economic value) in an open and free transfer of value between seller and buyer. In an economy where the focus is on equal outcomes the incentive to work harder, offer more, become better is dampened my human nature. Why work so much harder if, in the end, I receive almost the same economic value? We have gone from about 95% abject poverty in the world in 1800 to about 10% abject poverty. The modern era of science and technological advancement has been fueled primarily by entrepreneurs that sought not only to advance life as we know it but to also make a profit. Where would we be without Bill Gates, Edison, Tesla, Ford, Jobs, et al? We actually need a concentration of wealth to a degree in order to have accumulated monies to invest in new buildings, highways, inventions, services. The wealthiest people's money is never idle it is busily being invested to reinvent the future. That is capitalism with its warts but great motivations to push forward. Yes, it needs to be regulated to avoid the horrors of Robber Barrons, and yes there is a national industrial policy that the government should actively pursue. And yes, we are our brothers' keepers and no one should starve or be cold, or left uneducated in an advanced civilization. But, left fairly to its natural tendencies, capitalism is the natural expression of value and exchange - and it is the economic model that spurs the full potential of humankind to flourish.

[@captrodgers4273]

im not uneasy about it at all. im working to benefit myself and no one else

[@zengara11]

Well the issue with "working to benifit myself" is the only way you can do that, is if others benifit from you

[@erth2man]

During my long life I've been in ever quintile of wealth. A just society is one that you have the freedom and opportunity to go as far as your wits and will can take you. My life is living proof that the USA is the nation to do just that.

[@hooplehead1019]

And the life from much, much more people is the counterproof to that. The intriguing point is - its almost all "wits", aka genetic and environmental factors, and almost nothing due to "will". The more studies with advanced technology like gene testing are published, the narrower the window has got for "free will", "ambition" and so on. So the narrative upon which as you pointed out whole nations like the USA live upon, is objectively wrong. So while a society may have mobility, this mobility is mostly not due to your own decisions. The mobility creates the illusion you were betrayed by and which will be used by the winners of the mobility (or if we look at the data, actually not that great of a mobility,) but mostly static wealthy, to justify huge inequality.

[@princevesperal]

The emphasis is always put on the distribution of existing wealth, rather than its creation. Most people actually care a lot more about how much wealth they have in absolute terms, rather than relative to other people. In other words, it's better to have different levels of wealth than to be equally poor.

[@tybooouchman]

it seems some measure of irrationality would result from removing contextual awareness so how do you know that doesn't account for the difference between what we want and what we expect

[@nathanbruce1992]

Not especially surprising given that we live in a system that values merit (whether it lives up to that or not is a different story). People are ok with inequality because someone who works 80 hours a week to put their kid through college worked harder and therefore deserves more than someone who worked 20 hours and smokes weed all day every day. I'm not a huge fan how they left this explanation out, as it is a well known component of classical liberalism (and modern conservative) philosophy. Seems a bit underhanded, like it was intented to subvert our expectations ("omg people dont value equality!") than actually glean insight into this phenomena. A relavant hair split is he is talking about equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity (which I bet is also why people are better to those with less agency) Still interesting to see the data however

[@edkopik]

this is not at all unbiased people were told that they would be in a random place in society they obviously wanted to make sure every possibility is well off but thats not how it works, it's not random oh and lets also remember, one of the most equal contries (in income) is afganistan, where everyone is equaly poor

[@notmyrealname1437]

Under free enterprise people are compensated by how much value they add. How much do the different brackets contribute to increasing productivity and creating new products?

[@markdatheist9179]

Also is he accounting for age? "Wealth accummulation" cant help but increase with age no? Ill go search for the original paper

[@deeruas8726]

What people fail to take into account is that most if not all poor people don't enjoy being poor and that it can happen to just about anyone. I worked and got a degree and then then do to illnesses and life became "poor " . Despite popular belief I'm not a stoner living on my mother's couch and many other poor people don't fit this description. I don't have a fancy car .I take the bus and sometimes that's a stretch for some months. I pay my bills with what I have which means sorry I don't get to buy new clothes every month lucky if I get something new every year or so and nails no way. Food stamps are not buying people big amounts of groceries .My food stamps average out to less than 25 dollars a week but I am grateful for them .Most poor people I know are people and families stuck in hard circumstances. So before people classify people as this or that they should really get to know the person and the circumstances. I look at the top 1 percent and it appears that they have the same problems with as everyone else just with more money. I would have to know the person before I could tell for sure.

[@sebastiann7883]

The term "justice" is (mostly on the left) widely misunderstood. Justice is not that all should have the same, justice is that all should be measured by the same standards and receive what they deserve. I think we are in a fairly just society.

[@googletaqiyya184]

Are we a Jewish society now ? Why is everything judged on the scale of a dollar ? There are far more important things than being rich. Being at peace, full of knowledge, happy, fulfilled, of purpose. These are so much more important than how many vacation homes you have or cars. This nation used to be the pursuit of a purpose and happiness. Now money is king and that is sadthetic.

[@emmanuelperez1516]

Money has been king since the use of currency

[@anthonymorris5084]

The goal should be to lift people out of poverty which humanity is achieving with greater success. Why does anybody care about equality? So what if your neighbor has more than you do? The wealth of extraordinary wealthy people is in direct correlation with the success of the product or service they created which benefits humanity.

[@husnainanwaar1992]

resources should be efficiently divided among all 8 billion brains on this planet ship earth; together we are capable of amazing thing.

[@sifridbassoon]

of course it depends on how you define wealth. no, that's not a specious statement. i once came across an explanation of the equation that produced the famous 1% vs 99% wealth gap. no, it's not figured as you might suppose.

[@PeacockMediaPosts]

Dan Ariely talks about what it would be like to be objective in life in his #TED2015 Talk. Preconceived notions in our expectations color our world, said Ariely. In his study, he asked Americans two questions - Do you know what kind of inequality we have? What level of inequality do we WANT to have in society? The outcome determined what we actually have, and what we really have are very different. This sample also showed that no one wanted equality. What is your reality?

[@michaelchoki2133]

I just want people to be given more ways to drive them to self sustainability habitation.

[@RealMajorKaza]

Do you really want equality when you start from random position? Or maybe mobility? You know that equality may mean that you have each year 10% chance that this year is your last, or 1% chance. Equality may mean all will live 80 years or all will live 30 years. Equality means you are stuck with what you random. Mobility means you start with what you random, but end with what you did. I prefer as much mobility as possible, so all is up to me. In that case no matter what I random, because there is always way to change what I have.

[@itsELRe]

All our lives we've been told that we are unique, we are different. It is true. As a human being, so complex and all, there's no way we can be equal. We all have the same rights, yes; the same needs (as in biological and emotional) but, we are not equal as a whole. What we choose to do with our life makes us different, more or less than the others. I will not take someone like Bill Gates, or Ghandi or Luis Garavito and say they are equal. They are not, they will never be. We will never be equal and we should embrace that.

[@user-pv1ib7ds7d]

its about social equality. how everyone is equipped with parental affection, education and goods in order to pursue said individual inequality

[@evavanammers3724]

Is age in the data? College students and starters may be poor or even have debt, but will own more at the end of their career. Why is there no link to the data, btw?

[@tr.j4079]

We can’t just make changes based on what people think is the ideal distribution of wealth. People are **not** allocated to these wealth states by random. They have worked hard for it, whether it is for themselves or for their children whom will inherit these assets. Taking it away from them against their will is just unethical. It’s no different from socialism or communism where force is used to create an ‘ideal’ that has no way of persisting on its own. What we can do instead is to actively make changes to society focusing on well-being. 1. Shifting expectations, beliefs, mindsets of the rich and allowing their well-being to stay constant or increase while wealth are reallocated from them to others. 2. Providing wealth/assets to the poor to increase their level of well-being in a way that does not diminish future agency. The solution is better education and leadership.

[@milosmrdovic7233]

What's the point of (outcome) equality?

[@elrikard7909]

Socialism.

[@hanshotlast]

It’s evil

[@Sebtt]

To keep our system alive people have to buy, spend, buy and so on otherwise factories will stop producing and the whole system will collapse. In Resource-Based Economy production is made not for profit, but to fulfill people's requirements (at least basic) and where people are producing for each other like in the family to keep them alive and able to develop to the fullest. We use technology to help us in our house works or with engineering projects, so why not to use technology to serve us for manufacturing and delivering everything what we need to us? Today we can do it with actual technology, robotics, hydroponics, 3D printing, (quantun) computers, renewables, etc. We can today produce everything we need in our houses - no need to buy anything, but resources... and here is the problem - if so few owns so much resources how we can fulfill the rest of the world needs? We can't unless they'll share them with us and that's what we need - to share all planet resources for everyone to fulfill they at least basic, necessary to survive needs - until there will be at least one man in the world who hasn't its basic needs fulfilled it will do everything to fulfill them, even the worst kind of thigs... that's why you can experience crime, wars, poverty - they're all born from scarcity.

[@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122]

Wrong, capitalism is good.

[@icandodgebullets86]

Morally speaking there should be income inequality. The level of income inequality in the world tho is horrific! Also talking about income equality and not factoring in things like income mobility and age is not showing the full picture

[@bradleymallett7256]

"Morally speaking there should be income inequality". Not saying you're wrong, but could you justify?

[@SLRist]

So you think nobody's time is more valuable than anyone else's - even if they sit on their backside every day watching TV while you're out in the freezing cold building houses or performing heart surgery? How's it going to work. Say I want one surgeon to operate on me because he's better than another. I will willingly pay one more then the other to encourage him to operate on me. Oops, I just reinvented capitalism.

[@icandodgebullets86]

Bradley Mallett Yeah pretty much what SLRist said. How could you possibly want 100% equality in income in a world like ours?

[@SLRist]

***** OK, let's say you get rid of money. How do you deal with the unfairness that some people can run faster than others, or paint better, or are better looking. Where do you stop? What I object to is dishonesty - acquisition by nepotism, corruption, deceit. You can never eliminate these things, but they are the place to start.

[@bradleymallett7256]

***** Sure, that's a pretty good argument: it's not fair on the heart surgeon who put in years of work, or it's not fair on the freezing cold builder. But what's worse: surgeons and builders getting their fair pay when there are hundreds of millions of humans living in abject poverty; or perhaps income gets normalized across the board and those millions of people get an opportunity in life? I think that the few surgeons in the world not getting their pay is the lesser of the two evils compared to millions of third world people living in poverty.

[@englandtownwalks891]

How did we let this get out of hand ?

[@TheAprilanne]

The magic of trickle down economics.

[@user-wp8yx]

I'm taking the quiz at 2 minutes 40 seconds. frim rich to poor: 50, 25, 15, 7, 3

[@emiliosantiago9145]

How come more people don't thinking of the Pareto principle when answering these questions.

[@user-wp8yx]

more comments please.

[@natthawatjansukon2151]

interesting

[@samasoku]

First of all: I dont get it. Secondly:

[@nightshades7921]

People: My money?! Bank:

[@BFDT-4]

Elon Musk deserves more money. Dean Kamen deserves more money. Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive deserve more money. Jonas Salk deserved more money. And many here may argue about whether each or non really do deserve more. The point is that the person who creates a better life for the rest of us deserves more. He who benefits from that deserves less, but not MUCH less. Let Dan Ariely rough out the details.

[@worldcitizenra]

@BFDT - Yes, the people you mention deserve more for what they accomplished, although all had some significant help in achieving their results. However, I'm not sure based on the way you've presented your comment that you are aware that Jonas Salk may have deserved more, but in fact consciously refused to take more because he viewed vaccines as belonging to the people of the world, rather than to the person whose research created them. An article in Forbes in 2012 estimated the decision not to patent the polio vaccine resulted in Salk foregoing approximately $7 billion in income. On the other hand, there is Steve Jobs, who certainly deserved to be rewarded for the company that he lead in building. Unfortunately, simply receiving the rewards for that weren't enough to satisfy him and he ended up participating in stock option fraud by arranging to have incentive stock options held by himself and other Apple executives backdated to dates prior to significant increases in the price of Apple's stock, thereby increasing the value of his options. Not his finest moment and definitely not something that should have been considered as being something he "deserved".

[@LoveAndPeaceOccurs]

Thank You Dan ... this information is far more important than most people realize. You do a great job of condensing such important info but hopefully ... people will find out more about this ...and more importantly people will start doing something more about this problem. Love & Peace to All

[@lennardchurch8483]

But through the entire video he's asking the wrong questions. Wealth isn't a static value that everyone shares, leaving less for the poor because the rich have more. Inventors and innovators actually create wealth, making the metaphorical pie of wealth larger. Their excess is the fruit of their labor. The problem with the video's implication that people should re-distribute the wealth is that history proves that when poor people win the lottery, they tend to end up poor again in a relatively short period of time, because being poor isn't what's keeping them down. It's being bad with their time and resources that keeps them poor. Statistically in the United States, if you finish High School, don't have kids out of wedlock, and have a job, you will not stay poor. If we can fix these three problems (dropping out of school, having children out of marriage, and unemployment), the wage disparity will sort itself out without government intervention.

[@LoveAndPeaceOccurs]

Dan is only focusing in on one aspect of the Whole problem ... and while it is a significant aspect it is, but one, problem that lends to the ... FACT ... that only 1% hold so very much of the total wealth (there are many other questions needed to be asked and answered) ... Lennard, I have heard your argument (or similar versions) ... there are many folks who still believe as you do. I will have to watch the video again to be sure but I do not recall him speaking for a need of redistribution of wealth??? (many other distractions since 3 days ago ... I forget exactly what he says in here now) ... I am thinking he was hoping to help us understand, how our views of a problem (and misunderstanding of said problem), influence how we can choose to ignore or dismiss ... a problem ... fact is we will do nothing about a problem if we do not see it as a problem ... or much of a problem ... or we do not see that there is anything we can do about it ... etc... We certainly tend to not do anything if we can lay all the blame on someone else (or something else, again, that we can do nothing about. ) ... Would be a sweet world if greed, arrogance, bias and exploitation of the many were not occurring. Granted some people have no skills in dealing with what wealth they do have ... and some just do not care. But, what you say in general ... leaves out many, many factors ... you way oversimplify a very complex topic. Also, while I would have to check to be sure, I do not think what you say "Statistically" is accurate at all. Wage disparity has been around since way before schools ... way before ... wage disparity started the moment someone else said ... hey watch this, I can make this guy do the hardest part of the job and pay him only a fraction of the money due him (but he will accept it because he thinks he has no choice) giving me free time to do something else to accumulate excess wealth and with excess wealth I can start being able to hire even more people willing to do the work and not make their fair share ... I can then spend my time doing only want I wish to do ... It's called, "Letting the money work for you ... and once those who have accumulated wealth they will work hard at keeping it (which means they work hard at manipulating and exploiting and keeping the worker thinking they have no choice) ... really someone is (really) working ... it's the poor people (not the people who do not work at all) ... most very poor people work very hard ... but the system is kept so that it makes it next to impossible for a poor person to accumulate any excess wealth ... excess is made on the back of some poor person. Complex ... with many contributing factors and all those factors need sorted out and addressed ... with greed and bias two big factors that are extremely hard to address because no one wants to consider themselves greedy ... everyone wants to think they total deserve excess (including me) ... but fact is while some of us do work harder or more effectively ... some of us do deserve a ... Bit of excess ... but just a bit (again this IS for those who work) ... geez ... I could go on but I don't have the time. I will say there is so much more to say on this topic ... there are many books on the subject ... if you really want to know more take a closer look ... don't fall into the trap of just assuming you know what is behind this complex issue ... it will take many people, much effort and power and time to overcome this problem. Better education, will help, only people who are ready and able to have children, having children will help, and naturally, everyone needs to pull their own weight (or have family willing to pull it if they are unable or until they are able) ... that will help but those factors alone might only take care of a tiny fraction of the whole. Gotta go ... Love & Peace to All

[@lennardchurch8483]

LoveAndPeaceOccurs, "I do not recall him speaking for a need of redistribution of wealth???" That's exactly what he's doing halfway into the video when he's contrasting the current distribution of wealth with what people think it should be, and with his conclusion when he says that we need to think about this when determining policy. "FACT ... that only 1% hold so very much of the total wealth" FACT... even though most of the wealth is in the top 1% of the population, the people in that 1% are constantly changing. Unlike other countries where the Government controls the economy, there is remarkable income mobility in the United States. "fact is we will do nothing about a problem if we do not see it as a problem" My position is that like the video, you're looking at a symptom, and trying to address it like it's the problem. When you get sick, a runny nose and cough aren't the real problem, they're just symptoms showing you that there is a problem (whatever bacteria, virus or other infection has gotten into your body). The same way, wealth disparity in the United States is a symptom, and you stand to make the situation a lot worse if you try to treat it instead of figuring out what the root problem is and then attacking it. "wage disparity started the moment someone else said ... hey watch this, I can make this guy do the hardest part of the job and pay him only a fraction of the money due him ..." That statement is patently false. You presume that one person already has wealth while the other doesn't. Your "origin" of wage disparity starts in the middle of a flagrantly biased narrative. If you want a cause that is actually at the root of the problem, fix children's home lives, which means restoring the nuclear family to being the norm, rather than an outlier. The truth is that drop-outs and criminals and people in poverty overwhelmingly come from broken homes ("single parent households" if the traditional term is too outdated for you). To fix education, restore the nuclear family as the norm. To fix the crime rate, restore the nuclear family as the norm. To fix poverty, restore the nuclear family as the norm.

[@LoveAndPeaceOccurs]

Restoring a strong family were children are raised in a well connected family and shown all the Love they need ... is the most important part of fixing all problems (as well as the symptoms of problems). "Broken homes", "Single parent homes" ... does not matter what you call that ... what really matters is if a child,and the adults, are Loved and connected and are knowing and feeling that. However, wage disparity does become a problem, and not just a symptom (of greed and disconnection and indifference) due to how people react when they know they are being treated in an unequal and biased fashion. A snowball effect can occur and people have long ago forgotten what the real problems are (the lack of Real Love being consistently shown to each and everyone one of us from birth - death). If you read ... the book "Ancient Futures" (I've forgotten the Author's name) does a most excellent job of taking a look at things differently but in a more basic fashion. It does that by looking at an actual group of people who until the mid '70's (when western people begin to get involved with them) had no poverty and no wage disparity ... and no crime, pollution, unemployment, hunger, homeless, ... everyone lived equally (and really well (which I know is subjective but to me it was a paradise) and everyone was connected and Loved ... another good book is "Born To Love" ... again this guy here is only looking at a tiny piece of the whole and he is just pointing out how easy it is for people to not see what is going on (because they are not really looking well ... the symptoms are the first things that get our attention when looking at any problem ... and yes often people stop at just treating a symptom and the problem never even gets discussed let alone resolved BUT we do have to start some where. Your response to my statement about when wage disparity started ... I do not assume someone started with excess (although that begins early in history) ... that was the point where I was starting ... when no one had more than anyone else ... or at least relatively speaking. At some point in early history ... there was only that desire to have excess ... that desire is natural and in fact healthy (to have enough to eat during the winter when there will be no new food sources ... the desire to have enough to live gets mixed up with the desire to have more (the desire for power and control gets worked in there as well sometimes) ... we forget what is important along the way and other factors get distorted ... here I go again ... there is far to much that can be said and I can't write a book here ... excuse me ... You have a good day. Love & Peace to All

[@lennardchurch8483]

The premise of business and employment is that I only get what I want, if I provide you with what you want. To that end, My greed to get what I want coerces me to give you what you want, and it does so without government intervention. If we start in equal standing, and I work more efficiently than you, I will end up with more than you. And if we come to a point where I have something you can't get for yourself, and your labor would benefit me, then that is the circumstance in which I would employ you. That is where employment and wage disparity come from. If both employer and employee are free agents, then if the agreement becomes unpalatable to either party, then it can be terminated and both parties can go elsewhere. It only gets as malicious as you imply when dealing with corporatism and monopolies, or otherwise restrict people's options by government intervention. Today you'd be hard pressed to find any functioning truly free market that's free from government intervention often accomplishing the opposite of what it was designed to do. If you're going to ask me to read a book, you should at least have the author. What people-group is it about? If your assertions are true, there should be more evidence of this outside of that one book. Personally, I am extremely skeptical.

[@Cjeska]

What is interesting to me is that people thought that the richest 20% should be 3 times as rich as the poorest 20%, which basically means that the good for nothing stoner living in his moms basement should own a third of what a successful entrepreneur has, which includes people like Bill Gates and many other owners of internationally succesful companies. So I'm not sure if Mr. Ariely realizes who much people actually like the idea of socialism (and I hope to god they didn't come up with this answer after intensive thinking, or we are all doomed). If you take a closer look at his presentation when he asks, who would predict these differences or if there are different predictions from different groups of people, there is one very important distinction missing, it's the one between economists (or a group with at least basic economic knowledge) and economic illiterates. Now you can all take a guess on why this is the case, but if you think it's an oversight, think again :-)

[@rituparikh2255]

You don't know how percentages work do you...

[@Cjeska]

Ritu Parikh So if you own 30% of something you don't have exactly 3 times as much as someone who owns 10% of that same thing (which is all wealth combined)? Please explain your logic to me, I feel like there could be a whole new world waiting for me and I don't want to miss out.

[@VYElectrify]

Oh no, a leech like Bill Gates who stole other people's ideas (that they were giving away for free) in order to become the richest person in the world will only have 3x more than this make believe character that you stick any characteristic you perceive as negative to? Oh, the humanity!

[@FINALLYQQQQAVAILABLE]

Giving the poorest fifth a fair share in total does not mean giving all of them an equal share or even giving something to everyone of them. There could still be huge difference between top and bottom 1%. To me it's all about giving the honest and hard working people of the poorest fifth a decent share.

[@simonpeters5977]

Michael Haimerl You are not a very smart person, are you?

[@Shadow4707]

The questions are really bad. I for one have no clue how much less wealth a construction worker has compared to me. Similarly what is the average income of the top 20%? 150,000€ a year? 200,000€? Even more? Or less? I have no idea. And it's certainly no different for the people who participated in this (except those economy students perhaps).

[@danielbliss1988]

What these means is people want a more egalitarian distribution of wealth than you'll find even in Scandinavia. Or in other words, what gets referred to as "socialism" (using socialism as a pejorative) in most political cultures.

[@paulmoulton7248]

@5:24 We see what people want society to look like. The bottom 20% have 10% of the wealth, the top 20% have 32%. How stupid is that? The richest have only 3 times more than the poorest. My earnings are far higher now than when I was young so I would have been in every group as I have aged. I work hard, and I do fine, but I do not work nearly heard enough nor smart enough to be rich. Clearly people don't actually think when posed this kind of question. Inequality matters most when the poor are suffering. If the poor that suffer represent a tiny fraction of the poor, then income inequality is in fact irrelevant. It is when there are many suffering that inequality becomes a real issue.

[@MinkieWinkle]

what he fails to point out is that if you are on the average wage in the UK as an example. YOU ARE IN THE TOP 5 PERCENT !

[@AndrewMSmith130]

Financial wealth and happiness are not joined at the hip.

[@thorsten111]

I think if you really wanna look at this stuff then u also have to answer the question if you are willing to take a lot of the money the top 20% earn away by force of the state and redistribute it to achieve the desired outcome. I.e. some people work a lot of their time for the benefits of strangers. I also would love to have more equality in the society. But I do not want the state to take even more of my money by force (i see around 50% of what I make after the state gets his cut) and give it to people who did not work for it.

[@elibecker8848]

His problem is that he looks at the situation as a zero sum game, implying that there exists a certain amount of wealth, that should be distributed. Instead of striving for equality, we should strive to improve the economy, so that everyone will make more money

[@marcc.3513]

I think he's saying this: the rich have way more money than you ever imagined, relative to how much money we have. So, how does knowing that fact change how much money Average Joe SHOULD be getting, relative to Richy Rich? The rich CEO should be paid more for their expertise, but how much more is the question. And how much is the rich 85 percent willing to share? Guessing not enough to tip the scales just yet. I think he's saying that it's important to know these facts to move toward income equality. It matters when you decide how much of your paycheck to give to United Way and if you can afford to do that if you need to keep that money, for example, just in case you get sick and can't work for an extended period of time.

[@AidanAshby]

Of course no one answered the question saying they wanted full equality, as the question dictated inequality, it was biased. "How much should the bottom 20% get" sets up an inequal answer.

[@SwobyJ]

Divide up by 5%s. Go ahead.

[@nothing2believe]

This full video is wrong, but just talk about one point "what people think ....", it's the main problem, people don't think ! (As Dan Ariely)

[@boogeymanws]

Is this the guy that made the "Wealth inequality in America" video?

[@antoineaublin3812]

I wonder if it's the cas too... It stroked me how similar these videos are...

[@jbmetrics42]

No, that was former US Secretary of Labour (under Bill Clinton admin), Robert Reich.

[@antoineaublin3812]

James Martin Well since he was in office, the inequalities in the US are past, aren't they? ;)

[@jbmetrics42]

Cirrus Bim No, that isn't how government works. There is no government or people in office that can make equality. Only changes to our economic model can do that (and that isn't the role of the Secretary of Labour or anyone else in government).

[@jbmetrics42]

For changes to our economical model you need the support of the Central Banks and IMF (International Monetary Fund) and a system to replace the one that currently best represents their shareholders interest isn't likely anytime soon.

[@arisaga822]

“We went to Harvard Business School...” What, did you expect there to be a diversity of opinion there, or something?

[@larrysteimle2004]

If we could take all the world's wealth and distribute it evenly over the entire population how much difference would it make? How much would each person have? And how long would that situation last? I don't think wealth equality is a desirable quest...even if it were possible. What should our ultimate quest be?

[@NumeroSystem]

The fix for economic inequality is simple but not easy. All you have to do is replace Debt Issuance Selective Distribution Economics with Free Issuance Equal Distribution Economics.

[@jbmetrics42]

The first step would be to migrate away from a metal-based, debt financed society to a merit-based, equity financed society. It isn't the end solution but it would be a start to avoid the inevitable inability anywhere in the world to pay even the interest on current debt, let alone any of the principle.

[@mary2023arg]

i am happy i read subtites because in one momen, he says something like the wealthy to have less and he rich to have more. Which is contradictory and means nothing.

[@cynthiabauer5763]

Yes it was a mistake.

[@Samuel115s]

His face looks more recovered here

[@Timothymukansi]

The disparity is a bit crazy but it's a rule of nature, right?

[@hooplehead1019]

Even if it were - why bother? We have distanced ourselves from many "rules of nature": You wont run into traffic because you cant see - you get glasses instead. You wont freeze to death - you turn on the heating. So why would we accept "rules of nature" in financial inequality? Above all thats a system that isnt very natural to begin with - its constructed by us. And therefore, we can form it as we judge best.

[@CostaMichailidis]

Wonder what people think is true, is true, and is desirable about *turnover* in wealth. For income, *the 400 top income earners today are a completely (97%) different set of people than they were 10 years ago.* Half of all Americans are among the top 10% of income earners for at least one year in their life. Anyway, these are random stats, but I find mobility vastly important. I would call out corporatism as the enemy of mobility. Definition: When economic wealth employs political power (via lobbying perhaps) to entrench its position. Source Cornell: news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/01/hirschl-research-finds-many-join-1-percent-few-stay-long

[@worldcitizenra]

Costa Michailidis - Would you provide the citation for the source of your statistics? Thanks. As for mobility, you have selected an extremely small segment of the population. The 400 top income earners you reference represent 00.00015% of income earning people in the USA (1 in 688,000 people, approximately). Movement simply within the top 1% does not represent economic class mobility in any form. It is simply the super wealthy becoming fractionally more or less wealthy from year to year.

[@CostaMichailidis]

Richard Archer edited by answer to include source. I'll paste it here too... news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/01/hirschl-research-finds-many-join-1-percent-few-stay-long Yep, but you could look at a larger segment and the same pattern extends. It's a Pareto distribution, turnover and all. I think the problem is that the income gap is growing, and mobility is slowing. I wonder if technology is the biggest factor contributing to this or if corporatism really is that bad in the US. Probably is sadly.

[@v.mohanakrishnan4505]

Now let's do one for wealth

[@marcusdavenport1590]

This is only half true.... This is why people should learn economics. The rich have so much in America because of socialism in our economy.... The federal reserve, fractional reserve lending, subsidies, high taxes... Corporate taxes are taxes on the people.... So you'd need to add both the corporate tax and individual income tax to see what the actual tax rate is.... Plus the sales tax

[@nathanielscreativecollecti6392]

Just because it may be what we "want" doesn't make it right.