Agriculture led to wealth inequality

[Angela]

See: https://www.archaeology.org/news/6105-171116-agriculture-animal-wealth
"Agriculture, and the domestication of animals, led to increasing levels of inequality in human societies, according to an NPR report. Timothy Kohler of Washington State University and his colleagues speculate that wealthier individuals probably had bigger homes than their poorer neighbors. So they collected measurements of homes at 63 sites, including those belonging to nomadic groups, people who grew food on a small scale, and those who lived in early Roman cities, all dating between 9000 B.C. and A.D. 1500. The data suggest that the arrival of agriculture in Europe and Asia ushered in a greater disparity between rich and poor than that found in the New World. “This was a total surprise,” Kohler said. He thinks the presence of domesticated cows, oxen, horses, sheep, goats, and pigs in the Old World could have contributed to the difference. Animals like oxen and horses could have helped some farmers gain an edge because they could plow more fields, and thus produce more food, than farmers who did not own animals."

We've discussed this on this forum before. All the emphasis on the social stratification of the steppe people obscured the fact that social stratification by wealth occurred much further back in history.

In addition, of course, the stratification based on possession and control of metals was earliest where the use and possession of them was earliest, which was in non- Indo European areas.

It's still amazing to me that some people never moved beyond the "Indo-European movements for dummies stage", and still hold to it today.

I remember once LeBrok brought up how the people in these isolated Amazon hunter-gatherer tribes all looked alike. They were also alike in that none of them really possessed anything. Don't they share mates too at certain times of the year? It didn't stop them from skewering people who tried to move into their foraging and hunting areas, but still, there was less inter-group violence.

 

[firetown]

I believe this could have contributed to the average height of humans going down during that era. Before it was the tall and strong ones more likely to reproduce. Then it could have shifted to the ones successful in farming with physical abilities and advantages playing less of a role.

 

[bicicleur 2]

one main advantage to grow or collect cereals is that it is a food that can be stored and saved for a later day
but that also means it becomes a trade commodity
the very first grannaries were communal for the whole village
but very soon each house had it's own storage place for cereals

but also amongst HG some posessions already existed, be it flint or obsidian or maybe furs
I think the Anatolian HG became farmers because they had obisidian to trade for cereals from the Levant and cattle from the Taurus Mts

 

[LeBrok]

Wealth inequality might be simply explained by wealth itself, by societies progressively getting well off, by ever bigger numerical amount of available dollars. It is easy to be equal in a tribe where everybody has almost nothing, where every hunted or gathered thing could be easily split in 10 or 20 portions, and everything is cooked on same fire pit and everybody belongs to one family. Even till today it is easier for us to share with our family, than with unrelated people.
That's how it went in these small hunter gatherer tribes.
Now when population numbers are big and production of goods is ramped up, it creates opportunity for the smarter ones or with status to accumulate way more than average. At least it creates mathematical possibility of accumulation more than others, which didn't existed in poor and small tribes. Plus, from psychological point of view, it is harder to share equally with someone unrelated, even more difficult with strangers from other villages, even though it is the same ethnic group.
Here we have it, inequality explained by mathematics of big numbers and human psychology of tribal behaviour.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I believe this could have contributed to the average height of humans going down during that era. Before it was the tall and strong ones more likely to reproduce. Then it could have shifted to the ones successful in farming with physical abilities and advantages playing less of a role.

That I think was a consequence of their diet which had less proteins than HG diet.
Of course, on the long run, natural selcetion also played a role.

 

[LeBrok]

one main advantage to grow or collect cereals is that it is a food that can be stored and saved for a later day
but that also means it becomes a trade commodity
the very first grannaries were communal for the whole village
but very soon each house had it's own storage place for cereals

but also amongst HG some posessions already existed, be it flint or obsidian or maybe furs
I think the Anatolian HG became farmers because they had obisidian to trade for cereals from the Levant and cattle from the Taurus Mts

Right. The evolution of farming brought us privet properties. In this case field, home and storage belonging to one family, and later to a man of family, as in per proper patriarchal system. Families started to fend by themselves and for themselves first of all. Sharing with the whole village was secondary. For hunter gatherers, however, sharing with family and a village/tribe is one and the same thing.

Perhaps it can explain why in North Europe, where percentage of hunter gatherer admixture is higher, people don't mind paying more taxes, and sharing with whole society. In South Europe, where farmer admixture is higher, it doesn't work that well.

 

[Jovialis]

Right. The evolution of farming brought us privet properties. In this case field, home and storage belonging to one family, and later to a man of family, as in per proper patriarchal system. Families started to fend by themselves and for themselves first of all. Sharing with the whole village was secondary. For hunter gatherers, however, sharing with family and a village/tribe is one and the same thing.
Perhaps it can explain why in North Europe, where percentage of hunter gatherer admixture is higher, people don't mind paying more taxes, and sharing with whole society. In South Europe, where farmer admixture is higher, it doesn't work that well.

But what about the United States?

89% of Republicans are white Americans. I don't have the statistics for Republicans, but I'm sure the majority of that is Northern European; since the majority of white Americans are Northern European. Republicans prefer taxes to be as low as possible.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

The largest ancestries of American Whites are: German Americans (16.5%), Irish Americans (11.9%), English Americans (9.2%), Italian Americans (5.8%), French Americans (4%), Polish Americans (3%), Scottish Americans (1.9%), Scotch-Irish Americans (1.7%), Dutch Americans (1.6%), Norwegian Americans (1.5%), and Swedish Americans (1.4%).[11][12][13] However, the English-Americans and British-Americans demography is considered a serious under-count as the stock tend to self-report and identify as simply "Americans" (6.9%), due to the length of time they have inhabited America.[6][7][8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans

 

[LeBrok]

But what about the United States?

89% of Republicans are white Americans. I don't have the statistics for Republicans, but I'm sure the majority of that is Northern European; since the majority of white Americans are Northern European. Republicans prefer taxes to be as low as possible.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

We all prefer taxes to be lower. It is a complicated issue. Part must be genetic, part cultural. There is aspect of sharing, there is aspect of receiving more than giving, tax avoidance, black market, etc. Maybe white republicans feel that country is not united enough to share with "the others", the lazy free loaders and the new emigrants of other races, feel devided and alienated? The reson they desperately voted for Trump to get their country back. Democrats on other hand have big proportions of poorer segment of society. They will be more eager to raise taxes, becouse they are more likely to recieve than to give.

 

[bicicleur 2]

But what about the United States?

89% of Republicans are white Americans. I don't have the statistics for Republicans, but I'm sure the majority of that is Northern European; since the majority of white Americans are Northern European. Republicans prefer taxes to be as low as possible.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

all want lower taxes
I guess the point LeBrok was alluding to is that the black market in Southern Europe is much bigger than in Northern Europe, and also much bigger than in the US
corruption is higher in Southern Europe too

 

[Jovialis]

We all prefer taxes to be lower. It is a complicated issue. Part must be genetic, part cultural. There is aspect of sharing, there is aspect of receiving more than giving, tax avoidance, black market, etc. Maybe white republicans feel that country is not united enough to share with "the others", the lazy free loaders and the new emigrants of other races, feel devided and alienated? The reson they desperately voted for Trump to get their country back. Democrats on other hand have big proportions of poorer segment of society. They will be more eager to raise taxes, becouse they are more likely to recieve than to give.

No doubt people would rather pay lower taxes, but I was addressing this part of the sentence in particular:

Perhaps it can explain why in North Europe, where percentage of hunter gatherer admixture is higher, people don't mind paying more taxes, and sharing with whole society.

This is something that is not in line with the Republican ethos. Rather, it is more about being self sufficient, and not relying on government services. That charity is a better means of taking care of the less fortunate, than taxation to fund social services. Europe and the United States are very different in this regard. Moreover, from the days of the early Republic, before the GOP even existed, the United States became more like this under presidents like Thomas Jefferson, and later Andrew Jackson. The United States prided itself on being an agrarian society with a decentralized government. It was seen that centralized government and services were detrimental to freedom. Jefferson in particular wanted the United States to remain an agrarian society, and wanted to avoid industrialization. He didn't want people to become wage-slaves as they did in parts of Europe and Britain at the time. However, the War of 1812 changed his opinion on the matter, after the British ravaged the country. Thus there needed to be industrial centers to produce equipment and weapons for the military. Prior to that, he was against the idea of a large standing army and preferred local militias. The United States, was, and is a social experiment that often contrasts with Europe.

EDIT:

If anything, I'd say that industrialization was what really made the stark difference in wealth-inequality in more modern times. Farming gave opportunity to the early settlers of the United States. You could own your own land, and sell your surplus to the market for a profit. Of course, it does take a large and strong family unit to do that. Nevertheless, when there's ample room; as there was in the U.S.; a relatively poor family had a chance at being self-sufficient, own land, and even become wealthier. Again, I'll stress that this is something that could not be possible in the old world; since much of the land was already owned and developed. You would also need to have a government that is effective in keeping order, so you're able to peacefully farm.

What changed things was the industrial revolution, which led to the gilded-age in the United States; a time of massive wealth-inequality. Subsequently, this also gave rise to socialist and progressive movements, in both Europe and the U.S. as reaction to it. The reason why they were more influential in Europe, was because the industrial revolution happened there before the United States. Also Europe didn't have a culture that was initially established like the one in the USA. Thus, this is partly why many Northern European countries have the politics and culture they have today. imo

 

[firetown]

That I think was a consequence of their diet which had less proteins than HG diet. Of course, on the long run, natural selcetion also played a role.

I have not had much wild game but recall feeling much better whenever I have eaten it than if I eat the regular farm animal type of food. Farm animals being their degenerate versions, fish however has always been fish and I also feel good after eating usually. And turkey which is very close to the wild turkey. In terms of natural selection... I guess a social experiment might be interesting. Line up the 1,000 best athletes and the 1,000 richest men in the world and see who women pick first... and then see the impact that has on the upcoming generation.

 

[Jovialis]

I have not had much wild game but recall feeling much better whenever I have eaten it than if I eat the regular farm animal type of food. Farm animals being their degenerate versions, fish however has always been fish and I also feel good after eating usually. And turkey which is very close to the wild turkey. In terms of natural selection... I guess a social experiment might be interesting. Line up the 1,000 best athletes and the 1,000 richest men in the world and see who women pick first... and then see the impact that has on the upcoming generation.

With gene-editing on the horizon, the wealthy men will be able to afford the best services. So I would place my money them.

 

[LeBrok]

With gene-editing on the horizon, the wealthy men will be able to afford the best services. So I would place my money them.

Maybe for few years, then technology will make it cheap for everyone. Gene sequencing is quite a new thing, and yet already everybody can afford it.

 

[LeBrok]

No doubt people would rather pay lower taxes, but I was addressing this part of the sentence in particular:

Perhaps it can explain why in North Europe, where percentage of hunter gatherer admixture is higher, people don't mind paying more taxes, and sharing with whole society.

This is something that is not in line with the Republican ethos. Rather, it is more about being self sufficient, and not relying on government services. That charity is a better means of taking care of the less fortunate, than taxation to fund social services. Europe and the United States are very different in this regard. Moreover, from the days of the early Republic, before the GOP even existed, the United States became more like this under presidents like Thomas Jefferson, and later Andrew Jackson. The United States prided itself on being an agrarian society with a decentralized government. It was seen that centralized government and services were detrimental to freedom. Jefferson in particular wanted the United States to remain an agrarian society, and wanted to avoid industrialization. He didn't want people to become wage-slaves as they did in parts of Europe and Britain at the time. However, the War of 1812 changed his opinion on the matter, after the British ravaged the country. Thus there needed to be industrial centers to produce equipment and weapons for the military. Prior to that, he was against the idea of a large standing army and preferred local militias. The United States, was, and is a social experiment that often contrasts with Europe.

EDIT:

If anything, I'd say that industrialization was what really made the stark difference in wealth-inequality in more modern times. Farming gave opportunity to the early settlers of the United States. You could own your own land, and sell your surplus to the market for a profit. Of course, it does take a large and strong family unit to do that. Nevertheless, when there's ample room; as there was in the U.S.; a relatively poor family had a chance at being self-sufficient, own land, and even become wealthier. Again, I'll stress that this is something that could not be possible in the old world; since much of the land was already owned and developed. You would also need to have a government that is effective in keeping order, so you're able to peacefully farm.

What changed things was the industrial revolution, which led to the gilded-age in the United States; a time of massive wealth-inequality. Subsequently, this also gave rise to socialist and progressive movements, in both Europe and the U.S. as reaction to it. The reason why they were more influential in Europe, was because the industrial revolution happened there before the United States. Also Europe didn't have a culture that was initially established like the one in the USA. Thus, this is partly why many Northern European countries have the politics and culture they have today. imo

There are not huge differences overall, but it is not entirely true that higher industrialization has to bring bigger inequality. It surely gives it a mathematical chance as there is way more money and products in the system, but it is only one of indicators. There is also tax system, social services and corruption or lack of it, to equalize the income for all.

 

[Jovialis]

Maybe for few years, then technology will make it cheap for everyone. Gene sequencing is quite a new thing, and yet already everybody can afford it.

True, and I would certainly hope so as well. Otherwise, we would have some brand new issues to contend with.

 

[Jovialis]

There are not huge differences overall, but it is not entirely true that higher industrialization has to bring bigger inequality. It surely gives it a mathematical chance as there is way more money and products in the system, but it is only one of indicators. There is also tax system, social services and corruption or lack of it, to equalize the income for all.

I was actually referring to the early days of industrialization, prior to those social services being developed. It was those initial disparities that led to their development. I guess the upheaval that it created in the early days also contributed to it. Lots of smaller independently owned industries couldn't compete with companies that utilized industrial power. Prior to that, many people passed on a family business and skills to the next generation. The industrial revolution changed all that, and force many people to adapt; which there were some struggles in the process.

This is actually what had happened to Andrew Carnegie's family; who owned a weaving shop. They were put out of business, because of industrial produced goods. So they left Scotland for the United States; but his father became an alcoholic and left his family, due to the shame of not being able to provide for them. However, Carnegie went on to become a wealthy Industrialist himself.

 

[Angela]

No doubt people would rather pay lower taxes, but I was addressing this part of the sentence in particular:

Perhaps it can explain why in North Europe, where percentage of hunter gatherer admixture is higher, people don't mind paying more taxes, and sharing with whole society.

This is something that is not in line with the Republican ethos. Rather, it is more about being self sufficient, and not relying on government services. That charity is a better means of taking care of the less fortunate, than taxation to fund social services. Europe and the United States are very different in this regard. Moreover, from the days of the early Republic, before the GOP even existed, the United States became more like this under presidents like Thomas Jefferson, and later Andrew Jackson. The United States prided itself on being an agrarian society with a decentralized government. It was seen that centralized government and services were detrimental to freedom. Jefferson in particular wanted the United States to remain an agrarian society, and wanted to avoid industrialization. He didn't want people to become wage-slaves as they did in parts of Europe and Britain at the time. However, the War of 1812 changed his opinion on the matter, after the British ravaged the country. Thus there needed to be industrial centers to produce equipment and weapons for the military. Prior to that, he was against the idea of a large standing army and preferred local militias. The United States, was, and is a social experiment that often contrasts with Europe.

EDIT:

If anything, I'd say that industrialization was what really made the stark difference in wealth-inequality in more modern times. Farming gave opportunity to the early settlers of the United States. You could own your own land, and sell your surplus to the market for a profit. Of course, it does take a large and strong family unit to do that. Nevertheless, when there's ample room; as there was in the U.S.; a relatively poor family had a chance at being self-sufficient, own land, and even become wealthier. Again, I'll stress that this is something that could not be possible in the old world; since much of the land was already owned and developed. You would also need to have a government that is effective in keeping order, so you're able to peacefully farm.

What changed things was the industrial revolution, which led to the gilded-age in the United States; a time of massive wealth-inequality. Subsequently, this also gave rise to socialist and progressive movements, in both Europe and the U.S. as reaction to it. The reason why they were more influential in Europe, was because the industrial revolution happened there before the United States. Also Europe didn't have a culture that was initially established like the one in the USA. Thus, this is partly why many Northern European countries have the politics and culture they have today. imo

Completely agree.