THURSDAY, JAN 3, 2019: NOTE TO FILE
The Measure of Enough and the Inequitable
How much is enough?
Eric Lee, A-SOCIATED PRESS
TOPICS: EQUITABLE, ENOUGH, FROM THE WIRES, TOO MUCH
Abstract: Not quantifying the concept of "enough" or the "equitable," and our notion of "not enough" or the "inequitable," leads to fist shaking and yelling, to endless primate prattle. Being numerate is alternative, and putting numbers to the concept of the fair and equitable helps to clarify the mind wonderfully. An alternative to such measures as the Gini coefficient is proposed.
COOS BAY (A-P) —Alternative to the unsustainable economy of evermore is the economy of enough, which is the norm for non-growth societies (i.e. prior 300,000 years of hunter-gather society and some agrarian societies, e.g. Kogi). In steady-state economies powered by solar energy in the form of food and biomass fuels, egalitarian norms selected for a narrow range of inequality. Consuming enough is also selected for as is maintaining population within sustainable environmental productivity. Understanding and managing egalitarian biophysical economies of enough requires that the concepts of 'equality' and 'enough' be quantified. Otherwise only political opinions can be firmly expressed. An Enough Inequality Index (EII) is proposed as a measure of inequality that is more straightforward to measure than a Gini coefficient. Enough (E) is defined as midpoint between Just Enough (JE) and More than Enough (ME) that can be empirically determined as either real (biophysical) or perceived (manufactured social construct).
What is enough is rarely a single value or amount. To shelter humans, how many square feet of shelter is enough? Or calories of food per day? Size varies from newborn to adult and activity level varies within any subgroup that may be defined. Still, a range is implied and can be measured/defined. For 95 percent of adults living in New York City, a range of caloric intake could be determined empirically and would plot out as a bell curve. That 70 percent are overweight and 34 percent are clinically obese indicates that the distribution is on the overconsumption side of enough, that most are being harmed by an oversold SAD (Standard American Diet). Subgroups such as the homeless and upper one percenters in monetary wealth may show some tenancy to be on one side or the other of the curve, but free food is abundant (currently in USA) and elite consumers are more likely to diet, so any assumptions are likely to be disconfirmed.
In terms of square footage of residential space, however, clear differences are apparent. When 'jungling out' a homeless adult and their stuff may occupy 15 to 25 sq ft. Only about one percent of moneyed Americans will buy a new home with less than 1,000 sq ft. Households average 2.6 people, so 99% of Americans 'think' that a mere 384 sq ft/person is unable to meet the 'needs' of a civilized human such as themselves. Actually the average new home size is about 2,600 sq ft, so 1,000 sq ft per civilized human is minimally acceptable to average Americans. So a range for average homeless and average American is 20 to 1,000 sq ft/person. McManions for the hyper-elites range from 5,000 to 10,000 sq ft, so for elites 2,000+ sq ft/elite person seems minimal. Actually home size in America has doubled in the past 40 years, so soon less than 3,000 sq ft per truly civilized human will be considered slumming in the oversold consumer society.
The size of one's domicile as wanted can be manufactured without apparent limit assuming ever increasing wealth times aggressive overselling as usual. But how much space does a person actually need? Assume each person has as much stuff as they can carry. The question can be answered without taking a preference poll or asking Americans to vote on it. How much space is needed can be answered by 'asking' our ancestors of the last 100,000 years. They could build large shelters, limited in size only by their ability to harvest materials (e.g. cut snow blocks, branches, mix mud...) and amount of work/time/energy they had to build houses (e.g. igloos, huts, teepees, pit houses, longhouses). Building a shelter that wasn't big enough, or was too big, was selected against, so 'big enough' was selected for as the millennia passed. It turns out that everywhere, from jungles to the Arctic, humans built homes that were big enough and the range in size, sq ft/person, was the same.
Average Inuit igloo size was about 11.5 feet (3-4 meters) in diameter housing 5 people, though igloos up to 30 feet (9 meters) in diameter were build, but only to house multiple families totaling perhaps an entire band of 50. Still, if 65-100 sq ft for five (13-20 sq ft/person) was too little, each household of five could have built and lived in a 700 sq ft igloo (140 sq ft/person), but didn't, ergo about 20 sq ft was pushing what would have been universally perceived as more than enough space. Longhouses, permanently in use, had a series of fire pits down the middle with a family living on each side, but square footage per person: about the same. Teepees were about 10 feet in diameter or 15 sq ft per person, but as nomads, stuff, including the sticks and hides, had to be drug by humans and dogs using travois, so 15 sq ft/person may be 'just enough'. When the plains Indians acquired horses that could move stuff, the teepees got bigger (and empire-building began), providing up to 35 sq ft per person. The agrarian Kogi live in huts that provide 19 to 27 sq ft per person. When humans are not empowered by horses, steam engines or other non-human power sources, enough can be defined as being in the 15 to 30 sq ft range with 15 being Just Enough (JE) and 30 being More than Enough (ME). Enough (E) can be defined as an average of the range, e.g. 22.5 sq ft per person.
Hunter-gatherer society was, by comparison to empire-building complex societies (aka 'civilizations'), very egalitarian, or rather, egalitarian enough. The hunter-gatherer egalitarian norm is evidenced-based, not a matter of firmly asserted expert opinion (science: 'the belief in the ignorance of experts'—R. Feynman). We only need to collect data, not argue about how many sq ft a person needs. The Kogi are agrarian, but not empire-builders, and have evolved a sustainable SYSTEM whose complex society is (therefore?) close to hunter-gatherer norms (that are what has worked long-term) unlike those of all prior civilizations (complex societies that collapse or 'fade away').
As 'there is nothing desirable in consumption' per se, and over consumption is, long-term, strongly selected against, how wide the range is of consumption is best minimized to what is actually needed, and not maximized as is temporarily selected for to maximize growth in the short-term (tumors select for growth but are selected against long-term as they act as if they were not the host—tumor cells are the soma, humans are the environment, however). As what a human needs varies over a relatively narrow range, egalitarian consumption of enough is selected for. A society where some persons have an income that enables consumption 10,000 times more than enough, will be selected against.
 It is possible to believe in equality (or inequality) and to talk endlessly about the value of equality or freedom (aka political prattle) among other things, but without numbers being involved, all such politicized opinion mongering and alleged 'solutions' means whatever the one shaking their fist or yelling (or writing) believes their indubitably true words mean (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Tom Hartmann, Chris Hedges). |
So let's do the numeracy thing. Inequality exists as any deviation from 'perfect' (therefore non-existent) equality is inequitable. The principle, again, is a narrow range of inequality is selected for as it maximizes eMpower (eMergy/time) which could matter. Determine values for JE, E and ME, which involves data, not opinion. An adaptive policy is to minimize the range of inequality. It is possible to reward people for consuming less (enough) without rewarding them with consumer products and services or money to buy them.
JE = Just Enough, below which measurable harm is evident at, say, p=0.05.
E = Enough, with no evident harm from overconsumption to consumer or environment.
ME = More than Enough, above which consumption is more than should be acceptable for long-term persistence of individuals/society/species (>ME becomes maladaptive).
To normalize values for a range of inequalities set E = 1:
IJ=JE/E
IE=E/E=1
IM=ME/E
Range=IJ to IM
The range of inequality is indicated by a single value: the Enough Inequality Index (EII) or ME/JE.
EII=ME/JE or IM/IJ
Example 1: In USA 'needed' square footage as perceived by those buying new homes is about 1,000 sq ft to 4,200 sq ft per household, 2,600 sq ft average, with one to two percent of those buying new houses accepting less or demanding more. So given 2.6 persons per household average:
JE=384 sq ft/person
E=1,000 sq ft/person
ME=1,615 sq ft/person
IJ=384/1000, IJ=0.38
IM=1615/1,000, IM=1.6
Range 0.38-1.6 or
EII=1.6/0.38=1615/384, EII=4.25:1
But some people 'need' 3,800 sq ft per person, so EII = 3800/384 for an EII=10:1 which measures the inequality between lower middle and upper class (who buy homes) as some homeless may not have 15 sq ft to call their own for even one night. The full range of inequality, perhaps 15 to 4,500 sq ft per person that includes 99.9 percent of citizens would be EII=300:1 with 200:1 being inclusive of perhaps 99 percent. Exact values are left as an exercise for the student. Selecting boundaries is needed, and measuring the EII value that is inclusive of 95 percent would be reasonable and numerate.
Example 2: Non-empire-building agrarian society home area needed per person is 19 to 27 sq ft, so:
JE=19
E=23 ((19+27)/2)
ME=27
IJ=19/23, IJ=0.83
IE=0
IM=27/23, IM=1.17
Range=0.83-1.17
EII=27/19, EII=1.42:1
The EII (Enough Inequality Index) value measures the range of inequality that is socially acceptable or characteristic of a society. Values of 1.5:1 or less are characteristic of sustainable, relatively equitable societies, while 4:1 (>2:1?) is characteristic of hierarchical empire-building complex societies that tend to collapse (or 'fade away') at high inequality ratios.
Example3: In terms of overconsumption of environmental resources, also characteristic of unsustainable complex societies, the EII value calculated using the actual data-measured value of what is needed per person, instead of the perceived/wanted value, better indicates the degree of overconsumption. So if:
JE=20 sq ft/person (actual)
E=25 sq ft/person (actual)
ME=1,000 sq ft/person (perceived by average American)
EII=ME/JE, 1,000/20, EII=50:1
If EII=1.6:1 is the maximum inequality that is sustainable, then the average American thinks they need 50 times more than their ancestors or 50/1.6 is what is 31 times too inequitable to work long-term.
Elite consumers perceive 5,000 to 10,000 square feet per household as needed or up to 3,800 sq ft per person, so EII=3,800/20 or up to 192 times more than enough, and 120 times too inequitable. Is 12 times too inequitable sustainable? is 2 times?
Nature determines what works. Humans don't get a vote. Maybe EII=2:1 could be made to work, but optimal may be 1.4:1, which is what worked for our ancestors for several hundred thousand years. Humans need to manage their numbers and per capita consumption, or Nature will, and humans will think (or yell while kicking and screaming) that Nature is unkind. Nature is unkind, however, and there are limits to denial among other things. We need to impose limits on ourselves, embrace the what-works now that will come anyway, or the nature of things will do so for us. Denial, distraction, and obfuscation hasn't worked for empire-builders yet, nor has error, ignorance and illusion, and there is no reason or evidence to think it will this time around.
Example 4: Proposed policy for a sustainable and prosperous complex and managed society of enough:
A range of 0.8 to 1.2 may be equitable enough. Assume personal living space needed is less than 100 sq ft per person (a 10'x5' Teardrop trailer that's 5 feet high offers 50 sq ft). This would be a transitional value for former members of industrial society. So ME=100 sq ft is the upper acceptable value. So 100/1.2 suggests that 83 sq ft per person is 'enough' in a transitional society of enough, and 83 times 0.8, or 67 sq ft per person, is JE as 'just enough' for the maladapted refugees from industrial society, which would look like extreme overconsumption to 99 percent of their ancestors (and extreme underconsumption to current denizens of industrial society). The EII is 1.5:1, which is perhaps close enough to the equitable ancestor range to work long-term. This means that 'rich' people could have up to 1.5 times as much as 'poor' people.
Assuming all have enough to eat, consuming more than 50 percent more food in calories might be difficult as well as foolish. Elites may receive a bit more preferred foods, however, so grandma might get most of the goose's liver if that was considered the choice bit that almost everyone wanted, and the poor grandchildren would get over it. This level of inequality works. For the society to become more adaptive, space per person would decrease from ME=100, as might the range of inequality over several generations, to ME=30 when the prosperous way down was fully realized. Of course someone who chose to live in an 8'x4' tiny home that was 4 feet high could and would be seen as a progressive—social approbation, which primates value, would be awarded them in the Society of Enough. There may be something desirable in minimizing consumption: doing so would allow for either a smaller human footprint in an area (e.g. watershed management unit) or for a larger human population.
Space per person is one variable. Limits are biophysical, but as wants can be manufactured, the only limit would be 'cost', or rather available resources and energy to make homes. Energy is the measure of real wealth. A per capita range of 0.8 to 1.2 in energy consumption for personal wants and needs may be characteristic of an egalitarian enough society. As income and flow of money mirrors real wealth, the consumption of stuff needs to be limited (i.e. is selected for), and income inequality is measurable. If as the most progressive believe, $15/hour is just enough (JE) to live the consumer life, and the global minimum wage is therefore set at $15/hour, then the average wage paid to those serving the SYSTEM to allow enough (E) consumption would be $18.75. The global economy that supports the political, corporate, educational, military and all other sub-SYSTEMS, would set the maximum wage at $22.50/hour to provide for enough inequality.
But while this would redress the current extreme inequality issue, it fails to correct for overconsumption. Real needs, such as food and shelter, could be rationed to limit overconsumption. Energy could also be rationed equitably and the monetary system converted to eMdollars. Discretionary spending and consumption could be lowered to match environmental productivity by reducing wages and limiting the number of hours each human could work for money, i.e. set a maximum income and eliminate unearned income. If per capita consumption of a product or service exceeds the biophysical supply, then there is a longage of demand and the global wage range would be adjusted downward.
Median income globally is about $1,300 per year and median net worth is about $3,760. Anyone with a net income of more than $32,400 annually is a one percenter (i.e. about 40% of Americans who total about 4.4% of humans and consume one quarter of planetary resources). If the average wage is $18.75/hour, average income would be $39,000/year rather than $1,300, but all humans on the planet cannot consume resources like a one percenter. If income inequality were reduced to a 0.8 to 1.2 range without inflation reducing the value of a dollar, then E=$1,300, JE=$1,040, and ME=$1,560. This would be a step up in consumption for the bottom 49% and a big step down for one percenters or the wannabe one percenters in industrial society (i.e. 99.9% of Americans), but that's what degrowth, reducing per capita consumption and a more equatable consumption of resources, involves.
Achieving equatable distribution/consumption doesn't imply reduced consumption, either per capita or global, as that is another matter. To reduce global consumption to enough, median income might have to be reduced to $1,200/year, then $1,100/year and so on until a sustainable level of consumption was achieved. To begin the transition, make $15/hour the maximum wage. To increase per capita consumption, just reduce global population. If everyone wants to live like Americans, no problem, just rapidly reduce the global population (to reduce the pace of ongoing planetary life-support system destruction) to maybe 50 million humans clustered around hydroelectric power sources. Or maybe question whether living like Americans (Europeans, Japanese, Australians, more and more Chinese..., the 'moneyed' wherever) is a good thing. Perhaps it is time to support the IMF (Ilimitable Mother Force) and foundationally change the SYSTEM.
Values within the 0.8-1.2 range:
0.8-1.2
2-3
4-6
6-9
8-12
10-15
20-30
30-45
40-60
60-90
80-120
Imagine a complex society having a monetary economy. People who can work are expected to 'work' 30-45 hours a week, or 6 to 9 hours five days a week, though approved (by the Mothers) volunteer and community service jobs are included. Minimum income is eM$300 (300 eMdollars) per week or eM$10/hour x 30 hours and maximum income is eM$675 (eM$15/hour x 45 hours). High value work, e.g. brain surgery, and onerous jobs, e.g. outhouse cleaner, might be paid em$15/hour, while largely volunteer work, e.g. working in the community garden with friends, would pay eM$10/hour. Those who cannot or will not 'work' receive the minimum income of em$15,000/year. The self-employed could work more than 45 hours per week, but overproduction is not rewarded with more money. Above eM$33,750/year (650 x 50), addtional income is forfeit.
A perhaps fatal (in long run) issue with monetary economies is they select for a monetary culture that is incompatible with long-term persistence of a complex society. Needs and wants may be obtained using money (e.g. food, sexual favors, recreational drugs) and most people come to not know their needs from their wants. Alternative would be to ration needs such that all receive a minimum of 'just enough' of what is judged needed per evidence such that less would entail significant measurable harm. The 'more that enough' limit, 1.5 x 'just enough' could be used to reward special services to the community or to Nature (along with the bestowing of social approbation). In a monetary culture, those who work 'for money' tend to do things that are in their short-term self interest and not in the best interest of society or Nature long-term. Community members, per a blessing of the Mothers, receive pons (coupons) for needs that are exchangeable only by the recepient, unlike money. All would also receive 'perpons', short for 'personal discretionary coupons' which, like money, could be stolen or given away. The difference is one of magnitude. The perpon distribution might be 20-30 perpons (eM$) per week instead of 300-450 eMdollars. A fool and their perpons may be soon parted, but the harm done (and encouragement to takers) would be much less and manageable. Perpons allotments could be varied to minimize harm (2-3 perpons per week or month may be optimal), or not used, or given out rarely such as annually before the winter solstice leap days. Some monetary culture may be tolerable and beneficial overall.
'On this view, similarly, we eat primarily to restore bodily homeostasis, that is, to maintain a condition of being well fed, and so on. On this view, there is nothing desirable in consumption at all. The less consumption we can maintain a given state with, the better off we are. If we had clothes that did not wear out, houses that did not depreciate, and even if we could maintain our bodily condition without eating, we would clearly be much better off'. —Kenneth E. Boulding, The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, 1966
'GNP is a measure of throughput—flows of stuff made and purchased in a year—rather than capital stocks, the houses and cars and computers and stereos that are the source of real wealth and real pleasure. It could be argued that the best society would be one in which capital stocks can be maintained and used with the lowest possible throughput, rather than the highest'. —Donella Meadows Thinking in Systems: A Primer.
So, like what's the point? Less consumption is better? But that's like so not feel-good. Okay, it is, get over it. Since Donella is dead, I can reveal that Donella was IMF. Your mission, should you decide to accept it....read the book, bitches—become ecolate.
SUBNOTE TO FILE 4/20/22:
There are few billionaires (about 2,700) and fewer multi-digit billionaires. To reset the inequitable bar, just give everyone 1 billion dollars. Everyone will be a billionaire (until some fools and their billion are parted) and today's billionaires will add a billion to their account (a $260 billion billionaire will have $261 billion and be 0.4% richer).
Hyperinflation will kick in. If a poor person has $1,000,000,100 and a middle-class person has $1,000,100,000, the difference is a 0.01%, near equality, and today's millionaire would have 0.1% more than the poorest of the poor. Only a few hundred humans would have noticeably more money, but no one would be several orders of magnitude a more privileged consumer. No one could afford a mega-yacht as there are not 8 billion of them nor could 8 billion be made.
Few would have enough money to buy a car, and when only enough food could be produced to feed half the human population (sorry, but money doesn't grow food), then half the billionaires would starve, as would almost all who bought a car or kept one they had (as noted, fools and their money...). No one would meet at Davos (for a time).
Eventually inequality would reemerge if it could, but the global economy would be reset, and there would not be time enough to return to business as usual. After the Great Simplification, doing so might not be viewed as sane. Giving everyone a billion dollars would help humanity arrive at the condition that will come anyway by destroying the monetary culture. Put this proposal to a vote: humans will vote their short-term self interest as usual and thereby destroy modern techno-industrial society.
