In decembrie 2007, Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives a facut publica o lucrare, numita "Why Inequality Matters" ce consta in opiniile a opt cercetatori despre nocivitatea inegalitatilor sociale. Comentariile lor se refera in mare parte la cazul Canadei, insa ele caracterizeaza realitatile din majoritatea tarilor capitaliste.Voi prezenta mai jos cele mai reprezentative fragmente din cinci articole, prezentand inaintea fiecarui text, in italice, numele autorului si competentele sale :Trish Hennessy is director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ Inequality Project. He project focuses on trends in income and wealth distribution in Canada.In capitalism bogatia creste, dar numai cativa beneficiaza de ea"Canada is now the 9th richest nation in the world. Unemployment is at a 35-year low, more Canadian families raising children are working, and they’re working more.And yet the income gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% of Canadian families keeps growing. he richest 10% now make 82 times more than the poorest—in 1976 they only made 31 times more.A new phenomenon is also at play; one that goes beyond the extremes of the very rich and the very poor. Compared to a generation ago, 80% of Canadian families are taking home a smaller share of the economic pie they helped make. The concentration of incomes and wealth at the very top is accelerating. Dropping poverty rates may signal a recent shift from welfare poor to working poor, but that shift has not lifted people out of the struggle to make ends meet. heir struggle is very real and it is shared by many Canadians. The growing gap in Canada is no longer ‘ just’ about the rich and poor—it’s about the rich and the rest of us. The majority of Canadians say they worry about a growing gap. About half of Canadians told Environics Research they feel they are one or two missed paycheques from poverty. Economic insecurity is rife across most of the income spectrum."================================================John Kesselman holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance with the Graduate Public Policy Program at Simon Fraser University and co-edited “Dimensions of Inequality in Canada” (UBC Press), winner of the 2007 Doug Purvis Prize for economic policy research.Pericolele reprezentate de existenta bogatilor"Between 1980 and 2000, the top 5 percent of earners increased their share of total incomes from 23 percent to 29 percent. Even more striking, the top one-thousandth of earners more than doubled their share from under 2 percent to over 5 percent. Is there any reason for Canadians to be concerned about the sharp increase in incomes at the top end of the distribution?Top earners exert disproportionate inluence on public opinion and politics. The further their incomes diverge from average, the more divorced they become from the needs of average citizens. For example, the push for privatization of health care is driven in part by a minority who can easily aford to pay for their own needs directly. Growing inequality at the upper end raises the spectre of a more class-riven society. Families who have the means to live on palatial estates, travel on a whim, and send their kids to elite schools develop a consciousness that sets them apart from others. Those divisions operate in all areas of life to diminish the eicacy and self-worth of the average citizen. The lifestyles and possessions of the rich also reduce the well-being of their fellow and sister citizens. Social science research has conirmed the “relative income” efect; peoples’ satisfaction with what they have hinges in part on the resources and opportunities enjoyed by others. A middle-class home is not as satisfying if your boss has a mansion."================================================Charles Beach is a professor of Economics at Queen’s University.Populatia saraceste si doar bogatii continua sa acumuleze"[...] between 1980 and 2005, [...] In terms of the shares of total income received among all family units, the poorest 20 percent of family units saw their share of total incomes fall from 4.3 to 4.1 percent since 1980. he next 20 percent saw their share fall from 10.9 to 9.6 percent.The middle quintile share declined from 17.9 to 15.6 percent. The second top quintile share also went down from 25.2 to 23.9 percent. In terms of the shares of total income received among all family units, the poorest 20 percent of family units saw their share of total incomes fall from 4.3 to 4.1 percent since 1980. he next 20 percent saw their share fall from 10.9 to 9.6 percent. The middle quintile share declined from 17.9 to 15.6 percent. The second top quintile share also went down from 25.2 to 23.9 percent. The income share of the richest ifth of families rose dramatically, from 41.8 to 46.9 percent. Income tax data suggest the big winners are even a narrower band of very high income recipients. Clearly over this period, the beneits of economic growth have no longer been broadly shared. A rising tide has no longer been raising all boats. Again between 1980 and 2005, average incomes among the poorest 20 percent of family units rose only slightly from $12,200 to $12,700 per year, in 2005 dollars. For the middle quintile, it actually declined from $50,800 to $49,100.For the richest ifth, mean incomes rose by 23.8 percent, from $118,700 to $147,000 per year. The beneits of economic growth have been largely enjoyed by high income families."Pericolele inegalitatilor socio-economice"Increased resentment, disafection, social conlict, violence and crime potentially associated with substantially widened inequality could also reduce the security of property rights. This would make capital investments less attractive when it comes to investing in other, more high-growth and secure regions in an increasingly globalized economy. Again, this would reduce output potential and living standards in Canada.Greater inequality may also generate political pressure in a democracy for distortionary redistribution policies (through the income tax system, say, or regulatory policies) which, in turn, would inhibit investment and long-run economic growth as well as living standards.Finally, a more economically polarized Canada may be more fractious and less stable; it could function less efficiently politically. Widening polarization may erode Canada’s established broad middle class consensus, reduce social cohesion in society, and make it harder to develop new policy directions to address social and economic problems. Growing inequality can thus have fundamental effects onCanadian values, broad living standards, and middle class well-being."================================================John Myles is Canada Research Chair and professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto.Oamenii muncesc mai mult, dar numai "cei de sus" se imbogatesc"Canadian employment rates and annual hours worked per worker have reached historic highs. The employment of single moms rose from 61 to 73 percent between 1980 and 2000 and those working almost full-year (40+ weeks) rose from 42 to 56 percent.Instead, the winners and losers in Canada’s economic sweepstakes are mainly the result of historical luck. Today’s CEOs are earning exorbitant salaries because they happened to be born later than their predecessors of the 1970s, not because of any new-found managerial wizardry. [...] Most of the rise in inequality is the result of a growing gap between families at the top of the distribution and those in the middle. While higher income families have seen their earnings surge, earnings of middle- and low-income Canadians have stagnated."Egalitarismul, necesar democratiei"Democracy, by deinition, is egalitarian (“one person, one vote”): rights are attached to people, not to their property. Markets, by contrast, are driven by inequality (“one dollar, one vote”) and, by deinition, generate more inequalities. In the 19th century, it was widely believed that mass democracy would destroy markets: the “many” would simply use their political power to expropriate the wealth of the “few” and markets would collapse. That never happened. [...]Times have changed, and as the inequality trends indicate, Canadians face new distributive challenges. his is no time to rest on the laurels of those who preceded us. The viability of our society requires efficient markets; but it also requires effective democracy."================================================Frank Cunningham is a professor of Philosophy and Political Science at the University of Toronto.Din nou despre inegalitati si democratie"Inequality is an enemy of democracy. Autocracy is harmful to public spirit, since people understand themselves to be politically impotent. When a democratic society contains significant inequalities, it begins to resemble an autocracy. If money can determine for whom one is able to vote and dictates limits on what representatives can do once elected, understandable cynicism results and, with it, the weakeningof public commitment.""Gross income inequalities stand in the way of a democratic Canadian public in the following ways:The rich can leave the boat. They know it and the rest know it. With sufficient wealth, children can be educated in private schools, walled-in homes and country estates provide escape from urban blight, chaufeurs ease the discomfort of commuting. This creates two publics, one mainly concerned with making ends meet, the other with keeping and enhancing its wealth.Public resources for addressing problems are diminished. The accelerating income disparities were largely made possible by reduction of social services and public resources. This afects the potential for public action and demoralizes people about taking collective action.Canadians become beggars. With reduction of public resources, the charity of the rich must increasingly be relied on. One efect is that their priorities get privileged attention. Another is that catering to the wealthy to maintain social services defines these not as rights but as privileges conferred by a minority as they see it. This is not a situation conducive to a sense of public reciprocity.Inequalities foster elitism and resentment. A common right-wing allegation is that people who are not rich are jealous of those who are. At odds with this perspective is that those who thrive due to their own hard work typically are not resented. This results when people are well of just through inheritance, when rich executives givethemselves large income hikes, or when the amounts of wealth in question are obscenely high. Meanwhile, many of the rich see their wealth as signs of their superiority. Though publics are not the same thing as friendship communities they still require mutual respect in order to take common actions. Resentment and elitism are not conducive to mutual respect.Gross inequalities are part of a culture of possessive individualism. An alternative to resenting great wealth is aspiring to it as a main goal of life. This is a component of what the political philosopher C.B. Macpherson called “possessive individualism”. The contrasting culture is one where people aim to develop their talents in cooperation with one another. Public action in a possessive-individualist society is motivated by self-interested calculations, which is a shaky foundation for a vibrant public."Lucrarea integrala poate fi descarcata de la adresa:http://www.growinggap.ca/files/Why%20Inequality%20Matters%20in%201000%20words%20or%20less.pdfCe ne demonstreaza cele cinci texte citate?1. ca in capitalism, saracii saracesc si bogatii continua sa acumuleze, pe cand firesc ar fi fost sa se intample invers.2. ca inegalitatile sociale afecteaza procesele democratice si coeziunea sociala.De aceea, reducerea inegalitatilor si implementarea strategiilor egalitariste nu doar ca vor stopa goana consumerista si tendintele materialiste, dar vor influenta pozitiv societatea si prin asigurarea proveselor democratrice, cresterea coeziunii si sporirea fericirii generale prin redistribuirea catre cei mai saraci.