Consensus that America Should Be Like Sweden


A number of people are circulating this video, graphically showing that Americans don’t know how unequal our society has become.

But I wanted to point to a few details about the underlying study, which not only shows that most Americans have no clue how unequal it has become, but asks them to describe what an ideal wealth distribution ought to be. It shows a real consensus that an ideal distribution would look like Sweden, and even agrees that that distribution ought to be effected by redistributing money from the very wealthy to the three lowest quintiles of wealth.

All groups—even the wealthiest respondents—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than what they estimated the current United States level to be, and all groups also desired some inequality—even the poorest respondents. In addition, all groups agreed that such redistribution should take the form of moving wealth from the top quintile to the bottom three quintiles. In short, although Americans tend to be relatively more favorable toward economic inequality than members of other countries (Osberg & Smeeding, 2006), Americans’ consensus about the ideal distribution of wealth within the United States appears to dwarf their disagreements across gender, political orientation, and income.

The study does reflect a bit on why this isn’t driving political change, citing other studies; Americans’ ignorance about the inequality of our society is just one part of it.

Given the consensus among disparate groups on the gap between an ideal distribution of wealth and the actual level of wealth inequality, why are more Americans, especially those with low income, not advocating for greater redistribution of wealth? First, our results demonstrate that Americans appear to drastically underestimate the current level of wealth inequality, suggesting they may simply be unaware of the gap. Second, just as people have erroneous beliefs about the actual level of wealth inequality, they may also hold overly optimistic beliefs about opportunities for social mobility in the United States (Benabou & Ok, 2001; Charles & Hurst, 2003; Keister, 2005), beliefs which in turn may drive support for unequal distributions of wealth. Third, despite the fact that conservatives and liberals in our sample agree that the current level of inequality is far from ideal, public disagreements about the causes of that inequality may drown out this consensus (Alesina & Angeletos, 2005; Piketty, 1995). Finally, and more broadly, Americans exhibit a general disconnect between their attitudes toward economic inequality and their self-interest and public policy preferences (Bartels, 2005; Fong, 2001), suggesting that even given increased awareness of the gap between ideal and actual wealth distributions, Americans may remain unlikely to advocate for policies that would narrow this gap.

But educating Americans about our inequality is one step in that process.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

16 Responses to Consensus that America Should Be Like Sweden

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel DC Press: Ho hum. Rand Paul is running for President on same plank our forefathers revolted against King George. How cynical of him!
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @granick There is one tiny area where DiFi's bill improves on USA F-ReDux tho (but I'm laying low about it) @jakelaperruque
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @attackerman: After a decade reporting on "Guantanamo's Child," @shephardm interviews Omar Khadr. http://t.co/5CecJG8teO
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Bingo. 1) FISC has ALREADY approved 2) we have examples of summaries fr Vaughn 3) FISC proven unreliable arbiter @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Once you've defined bulk as "all" then it's very easy for IC to get to "not-bulk" w/in terms of law. @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque But that's fine. We're allowed to disagree. My larger issue is w/adoption of IC def of "bulk" which is meaningless @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Again, NOT excluding explicitly corporate selectors we know FISC already approved seems like sanction to me. YMMV @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Marshall Stacks ->>>>>than Marshall Islands #JustAskJimiRichieAndBuckDharma
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Suffice it to say I find it unpersuasive. Moreover, if intent was to prohibit it, say so explicitly. @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Yes, I'm familiar w/claim that terms not prohibiting something might be interpreted to prohibit something. @granick
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Actually he expands it to ratify Bates' DRAS ruling. You might ask why! @granick
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Btw, have you considered that section dedicated to CIA dragnet was in IG Report? @granick
2hreplyretweetfavorite
August 2011
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031