Keith Payne proves why inequality isn’t just an economic issue but also a health and societal issue in “The Broken Ladder.”

Payne, K. (2017).  The Broken Ladder: How Inequality Affects the Way We Think, Live, and Die.  Penguin Books.  246 pages.

Overview

According to Keith Payne, a neuroscience and psychology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we recently reached and surpassed the same level of inequality since the late 1920s, just before the Great Depression (p. 23).  Attempting to untangle the reasons why inequality has grown so significantly is a question that occupies the minds of social science researchers the world over.  There are many explanations, but what exactly does inequality do to us and our bodies?

Payne, in “The Broken Ladder: How Inequality Affects the Way We Think, Live, and Die,” examines how inequality “changes how we experience the world” (p. 9).  In this book, he shows how more stark economic imbalances compromise our life, from the molecular scale of our bodies to our national politics.  He does not offer policy solutions to reduce inequality, however, he adds to the discourse by focussing on “the paradoxes of living in a modern, globalized, high-tech world” where personal goods and luxuries are cheap but financial security is out of reach for too many (p. 10).  

The book is essential because it proves that the obsession with continuously expanding the economic pie is myopic as it often wrongly assumes that inequality is the same as poverty.  Reducing inequality is necessary for a healthier, smarter, and more united society. 

A convincing account

A key aspect of Payne’s text is how we are biologically wired to compare ourselves to others constantly.  We understand and process information not as absolute truths but in relation to other things.  For instance, if we deadlift a heavy barbell before lifting a light one, we will think the light weight is incredibly light; conversely, if we deadlift a light weight before a heavy one, we will feel the heavy weight is hefty.  Many studies have demonstrated this innately human, relative perception of understanding in other areas of life like food and even athletic ability.  This tendency is rooted in our DNA for reasons that may benefit us but can also harm if done excessively and without appropriate context.

Consider how highly stratified societies compromise one’s health.  The lower we believe we are on the socio-economic ladder, the worse our life outcomes, such as weight gain, heart disease, life expectancy, chronic pain, anxiety, and depression (p. 14).  For example, one study by Keely Muscatell and others at UCLA proved that social evaluation caused (yes, not correlates) more inflammation in the bodies of individuals who considered themselves lower on the ladder (p. 20).  The study is concerning because this stress response (i.e. one’s body perceiving status as a threat) happens immediately and can be prolonged, eventually leading to auto-immune disease (p. 132).  It is a vicious cycle, especially since poor health, disability, or injury can be a significant obstacle for someone attempting to move up the ladder.

Payne also explores why inequality, not necessarily absolute poverty, negatively affects our decision-making abilities.  He reminds readers that the nature versus nurture debate is unhelpful since it categorizes behaviour as an either-or conundrum when it is both.  Environmental factors and an individual’s choice require consideration.  So it begs the question: why do some people engage in self-destructive behaviour (p. 199)?  

One reason, according to Payne, is how people who feel poor may be unconvinced of a promising future, which may explain their short-sightedness and their tendency to engage in self-sabotaging behaviours like gambling, smoking, drinking, and having unprotected sex (p. 70-71).  Shockingly, according to the author’s and his colleagues’ research, those counterproductive tendencies correlated in more unequal areas even when randomly selected (p. 78).  Even when acting responsibly, feeling poor makes people focus on short-term crisis management instead of long-term productivity, countering the classical economic theory that people operate rationally.  Considering these findings, we need a more nuanced, holistic understanding of a person’s dreams, disappointments, and losses, explains Payne (p. 200).

Inequality also divides us politically.  Relying heavily on studies from the United States, the most unequal developed society, the author demonstrates how people may support policies like tax increases and redistribution when they feel relatively poor to others, but the opposite if they feel wealthy.  For instance, earning six figures in Mississippi may make you feel more affluent than most, but somewhat middle class in New York.  Payne explains that this is why a rich Mississippian is likelier to feel more Republican than a New Yorker with the same wealth (p. 105).  

Moreover, higher inequality may also affect our politics in disgraceful and troubling ways.  Consider how racial prejudice increases in times of economic distress or how states with higher inequality experience more implicit racial biases (p. 175).  These findings may explain why advocates of states’ rights, tax cuts, and other economic policies (supposedly grounded solely in economic rationality) may be racist under the guise of policy solutions (p. 171-172).  It seems that inequality affects our biology and our personalities and thoughts as well.  Then again, this is unsurprising considering the symbiosis of physical and mental health.  

Higher inequality may also explain why more unequal societies are more religious.  It’s why the United States, a religious country, is an outlier among the OECD (p. 150).  Many poor or middle-class people may need to rely on the charitable services of religious institutions rather than from a more professionalized, government-administered, taxpayer-funded department.  Relying heavily on religious institutions for economic assistance, regardless of one’s religious convictions, is probably unwise, given that socio-economic mobility is higher in the less religious Scandinavian countries thanks to their more robust social welfare policies.  It’s no wonder why many right-religious individuals are suspicious of governments funding healthcare, elderly, and child care services; government assistance makes religious communities obsolete.  Jesus-Care doesn’t compare to Medicare.

So what can we do about all this?

Payne does not provide policy solutions to reduce economic inequality that readers of economics usually hear, like more distributive taxation or increased public investment.  Instead, Payne offers a set of mental tools an individual can employ (p. 210-211).  Because we as humans are naturally inclined to compare ourselves to others, it is foolish and impossible to advise anyone not to compare themselves to another.  What matters is learning how to compare oneself to others effectively and healthily.

Payne offers two solutions: downward comparisons and upward comparisons.  The former involves comparing yourself to people lower than you on the social ladder.  The purpose is to build awareness of the good things in your life to have more gratitude.  However, no one should use this technique excessively since it may breed complacency with one’s current living standards.

Upward comparisons are the opposite.  The purpose is to compare oneself to people on a higher rung of the ladder.  Instead of feeling resentful and inferior to the person above you, make a genuine effort to use that person’s success and status to motivate and reorient yourself to achieve your own goals.  This approach works best if the person is in similar situations or areas of interest as yourself.  Payne discourages comparisons of yourself with top performers like Albert Einstein or Michael Jordan (p. 211) – you must be somewhat realistic, no matter how painful it is to admit.  He summarizes these approaches beautifully, explaining that it is about comparing “with lucidity” (p. 211).

A bit tedious at times

I only had one issue with this book: it regularly reads like a list of studies.  Though the studies and findings are intriguing, it does not appear that the author offers much of his perspective on the issues, despite occasionally mentioning his research and personal life, demonstrating his awareness of inequality’s ill effects.  Despite that, the book is persuasive.  It just becomes fatiguing to read after a while. 

Why this is book relevant

There are several insights applicable to many of us throughout the book.

Payne presents findings demonstrating that we humans tend to think of those who share our beliefs and opinions as insightful and intelligent, while those who differ need our perspective.  We are less likely to compromise if we believe our opponents are incompetent, immoral, or irrational (p. 110).  Nowadays, it is far too simple to avoid and ignore facts and opinions challenging our most deeply-held beliefs, exacerbating our already hyper-polarized existence.  We must make a concerted effort to be aware of our biases and genuinely engage with varying perspectives, not just for our intellectual endeavours but also for society’s general health.

Additionally, everyone, including the smartest among us, is guilty of performing mental gymnastics by bending evidence to fit their convictions in uncertain situations.  Some people believe that an individual’s outcome, whether suffering or prospering, is morally just, and they have what they deserve.  But Payne provides evidence showing this is untrue.  

An experiment by J.V. Butler found people who received more money for correct answers on a reasoning test felt they were superior and deserved their fortune.  Those who received less believed they, too, were less deserving.  Both groups, however, did not realize that the researchers distributed the money randomly, meaning that the participants’ test answers were irrelevant (p. 145-146).  

Why are we prone to such thinking and posturing when it’s not warranted?  In times of chaotic uncertainty, it is reassuring to construct meaning to feel grounded.  The main point is that we may be better mentally if we regularly counted our blessings and correctly acknowledged the impact of chance on our life’s outcomes—privilege matters.

One last point worth highlighting is when Payne addresses the “socialist” accusation against anyone pushing for reform.  He explains that it is not ‘socialist’ to try and reduce today’s extreme levels of inequality, just as efforts towards reducing binge drinking and driving are not demands for prohibition (p. 207).  The yawning gap between the haves and have-nots has become too large and should be reduced.  Telling the poor or those who feel insufficient to “pull yourselves up by your bootstraps” is nonsense since, as demonstrated by the Gatsby Curve, more inequality results in less upward mobility.  The goal is not to create an egalitarian utopia.  The goal is to try and shrink the gap so most people can fairly and honestly compete, preventing the winner-take-all market tendency that currently exists (p. 208).  Our health, society, and politics depend on it.

Overall impression

Payne explores that inequality affects our behaviour, thoughts, health, society, and politics at large.  Relying on ample scientific literature from fields like social psychology, medicine, political science, and economics, Payne is not only succinct and straightforward but profound and entertaining.  Recounting his personal experiences throughout the book makes it far more readable than any dry, technical academic paper on a controversial subject.

The biggest takeaway from this book is that we should stop viewing inequality as a moral issue and begin to regard it as a public health issue (p. 206).

So who should read “The Broken Ladder”?  Anyone interested in a decent counterargument to the continuous economic growth and ‘expand the pie’ paradigm will find this book helpful.  It is a fun, quick, and easy read.  Payne interlaces his firsthand experiences throughout its pages, and the chapters average about twenty-two pages each, so it will not take long to complete it.  He uses concrete data to make sound, scientific judgements, but the numbers are not unbearable for a lay audience.

A final note worth considering: the societies that are better than others may be the ones that can more effectively address inequality.