Portable tools, farmstead implements, domesticated animals, serfdom, & slavery—with increased civilizational complexity the dimension of the space of potential inequalities increases, & do we need mor
While it's true that hunter gatherer societies have more equality, the unfortunate fact is that everyone in these societies tends to be equally poor. Since poverty is a relative term, the only way to avoid this problem is to keep the hunter gatherers isolated, so they have no one else to compare themselves with. I recall the line in the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" where the New Guinea native asks the author "How is it you have so much cargo?" aka material possessions.
Improvements in agricultural productivity can go 3 ways. 1. enrich some relative to others in ways that are defendable and transferable (their thesis) 2. enable population growth to the point where production just supports the new population (the Malthusian solution is probably worse than inequality) 3. support growth in other industries that can absorb the population growth (some agricultural surplus goes to investment beyond agricultural technology). This is the story of economic development where other industries offer higher labour productivity. The modern development question is how to get labour out of agriculture to make investing in productivity improving technology worthwhile. Labour intensive export oriented manufacturing has improved income equality across countries, but increased it within countries. Can economic development be achieved without highly unequal growth?
Their major points are (a) to attempt to quantify things, and (b) say that high inequality under agriculture was not a stable outcome—until the coming of the plough.
While it's true that hunter gatherer societies have more equality, the unfortunate fact is that everyone in these societies tends to be equally poor. Since poverty is a relative term, the only way to avoid this problem is to keep the hunter gatherers isolated, so they have no one else to compare themselves with. I recall the line in the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" where the New Guinea native asks the author "How is it you have so much cargo?" aka material possessions.
Improvements in agricultural productivity can go 3 ways. 1. enrich some relative to others in ways that are defendable and transferable (their thesis) 2. enable population growth to the point where production just supports the new population (the Malthusian solution is probably worse than inequality) 3. support growth in other industries that can absorb the population growth (some agricultural surplus goes to investment beyond agricultural technology). This is the story of economic development where other industries offer higher labour productivity. The modern development question is how to get labour out of agriculture to make investing in productivity improving technology worthwhile. Labour intensive export oriented manufacturing has improved income equality across countries, but increased it within countries. Can economic development be achieved without highly unequal growth?
Is it news that the shift to agriculture led to the rise of highly unequal societies? I thought that was an "as everybody knows" thing.
Their major points are (a) to attempt to quantify things, and (b) say that high inequality under agriculture was not a stable outcome—until the coming of the plough.
Your lifebuoy on Gini is enlightening
Thank you for this