The Law Of Inequality

The idea of equality forever remains a controversial topic. I recently ventured into the domain of economics, as a field of study. There, I discovered a law that governs lots of distributions, whether wealth, height, music produced, articles written, goals scored, crimes committed, baddies fumbled, etc… This law is called the Price Law. Generally known as the Pareto Principle or Mathew Principle.

Naturally, I have to make sure I don’t bore you to death by making this purely educational, or God forbid have it remind you of school. Ergo, I will do my best to make sure it is equally as entertaining as it is insightful.

In relation to the idea of EQUALITY have previously written on Feminism, and then I tried figuring out whether men and women can ever be Equal, and lastly on Income Inequality. I will publish them later on this platform.

If you are a new reader, I’m happy to have you here. I hope you stick around. Also, if you are a returning reader, I’m more than elated to have you here again.

Now that formalities are out of the way, let’s get into it.

Minority Over Majority

The Pareto Principle states that 80% of consequences come from 20% of the causes, asserting an unequal relationship between inputs and outputs. This, in essence, means that the square root of everything is the best of everything. I understand this might seem confusing at first, but bear with me.

As Price’s Law, it is called the 20/80 rule. This rule applies to the generality of things. It is a natural law that humans have actively tried to control but to no avail.

You can apply this law to lots of things. For example, goals scored, books sold, songs made, phones sold, food produced, etc.

The idea here is that the minority will always be the best of everything. Everything is unevenly distributed, as I’ve previously explained. J.K Rowling, the writer of Harry Porter, has probably sold more books than any other writer can aspire to sell. If you list the authors of the most successful books ever written, they’ll probably make up only 20% of all writers. But combined, they’ve probably sold more books than at least 70% of writers.

You can say this too about gaming studios. If you combine the success of studios like EA, Rockstar, Konami, Ubisoft, From Software, Naughty Dog, Gameloft, Tencent, etc, they will only make up about 20% of gaming studious, yet they make up more than 80% of all the success.

The same law applies to movie producers. When you combine the success of producers like Kevin Feige, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Quentin Tarantino, Jordan Peele, Michael Bay, etc, they will make up less than 20% of all worldwide movie producers, but they make up the producers of 80% of all movies awards earned. And they also make up 80% of the most successful movies.

The 20/80 law is not always accurate, but it makes up a rough estimate of the way lots of things are unevenly distributed. Even IQ is unevenly distributed among siblings. Studies have shown that firstborn children typically have higher IQs than other children of the same nuclear family.

Even as someone who has written over 35 pieces, my top 5 most-read write-ups account for over 50% of all the views on my WordPress page. I didn’t advertise any of them. Nature just ran its course.

Success Begets Success

The easiest thing to do is to move from 1 to 2. But it is a lot more difficult to move from 0 to 1. In almost all areas of life, there are positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops.

As a musician, you might have made thousands of songs all your life. But one lucky day, you make a new song, and it goes viral. Then out of nowhere, you are getting ambassadorship deals, labels discovered your old songs and want to sign you, movie studios want to make documentaries of your success, and you are all the talks of social media.

Then as this lucky fella, you lean into your success and began making more new songs. Congratulations, you made it out of the underworld. You are now mainstream. Just as Drake’s song goes, you’ve moved from 0 to 100 real quick.

Speaking of Drake, he is the most streamed artist on Spotify. This level of success brings more success. Take Kanye West for example. He became a successful artist, and that opened more doors for him to get his Yeezy shoes deal with Adidas. But this is a large-scale success. His success story didn’t come easy. Just like every grace-to-grace story. You just need that big hit to make it. This is called a positive feedback loop.

If I ask you now: asides from Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, and DeBubussy, how many other classical composers do you know? You could probably name a few more. Or none. But, search up classical composers on Google, and see how long the list is. Some of them never made the spotlight.

You can say the same thing about actors, podcasts, writers, dancers, teachers, etc. Anything, really. You will always find this 20/80 law in operation. Another example is the Mappa anime studio. Because of their successful anime, and also for the fact that they make some of the most visually captivating stories, they’ve been asked to work on some of the biggest anime series.

Currently, Mappa studio is working on Jujutsu Kaisen season 2, One Punch Man season 3, Attack on Titan Final Season Part 3, Hell's Paradise: Jigokuraku, Vinland Saga, The God Of Highschool, and Chainsaw Man, among others. Just a couple of successful anime has earned them all these projects. This puts Mappa among the 20% of anime studios that make at least 80%.

Not a lot of people can make it past 0. You can have a downward spiral when you are starting with nothing. And here, it is easy to blame this failure on those that made it. Nietzsche called this slave morality. The idea that you are better than those who somehow outperform you. Or even blame the failure on Capitalism. This would be a little ironic, since, in retrospect, it is the only economic system that can make you wealthy.

The best predictors of success are IQ and Conscientiousness. One is a measure of intelligence, and the other is a personality trait for discipline, orderliness, and how hardworking a person is. To put it psychologically, only a minority of people are high in both things. I know smart people who aren’t hardworking. I equally know people who are hardworking, but they aren’t the smartest people I know.

You need to be at the extreme end of these traits to be among the minority. You need to be among the 20%.

Bill Gates’ IQ is 151.45, even though he has never publicly disclosed it. He scored 1590 out of 1600 on his SATs in 1973, which converts to a score of 1590 out of 1600. With this IQ, Bill Gates is technically a genius because he is smarter than 99.96% of the population. He is practically in the top 1%.

The Art Of Trading

There is bound to be inequality wherever there is freedom of choice. And meritocracy drives inequality. Meritocracy is the idea that you interact with or do something with another person/thing solely because of their ability and achievements.

Let’s try a thought experiment. Which of these companies are you likely to buy your phone from if they all offer their products at the same price: Samsung, Itel, or Infinix? Let’s try another one. At the same price, which of these are you likely to buy your home appliances from, Apple, Chuckwudi, or INSP?

If I had to guess which brands you patronized, I’d probably be right. Now you’ve marginalized the unknown brands and enriched the already popular ones. But this wasn’t a conscious effort from you to deliberately make the other unknown brands less fortunate about having a new customer. It was more of you, a rational being, going for an established brand that you are familiar with.

This is generally how economic inequality happens. The best teachers are hired. The best dancers, writers, pianists, scientists, doctors, mechanics, architects, players, etc… All hired on merit. And their success will bring them more success. Just as it was proclaimed in the New Testament that, “Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.” So, if you aren’t hired as anything you may be, the world will move past you.

Here is where you find that it is easy to be among the marginalized group who can’t sell their products, can’t be signed by labels, can’t be hired, can’t be assigned a project, etc. While giving people a chance is a good thing, it is not the kind of risk you want to take if you are aware of the consequences of things going wrong. You wouldn’t wish to hire a new mechanic when you are fully familiar with the quality of the work of another.

As a businessman or woman, you can have success in one thing, and that will open doors for more things. You started by being among the 80%. Then slowly, you climbed your way to the top of the hierarchy. Now, you are among the 20% that own or sell almost every other thing. In a way, a downside of capitalism is the monopoly that comes with it. But an upside is that it creates competition. Businesses actively compete to better serve their customers. This is good for the end user.

In the art of trading, there are usually win-win situations, as there are equally win-lose situations. The driving forces between the aforementioned are the differences between WANTS and NEEDS.

What you’d be willing to trade for something you want, and for something you need would be different. When people engage in social production, they create value. You can acquire said value by trading it for money. This may enrich the chain of production, but the end product satisfies you. So, it is a win-win.

From here, the more people trade, the more economic inequality grows. Pareto Distribution sets in. This is natural. Regardless of the economic system, there are going to be differences in how, when, what, and when people make certain things. Unless the argument here is that people are inherently the same.

Success begets success. But what are the consequences of rapid economic inequality?

Men And Status

Whether psychologically, historically, biologically or any other “cally”, the most important thing to men is status. You can read my article on Sexual Selection In Men, and In Women, if you’d like to find out more about this claim. I will be publishing them on this platform sometime next week.

Anywhere there are limited resources, animals (including humans) arrange themselves into some kind of hierarchy. In Sexual Selection Theory, even before we were cavemen (palaeolithic era), women selected men based on certain criteria. Because the rate of survival wasn’t that high, women typically would go for men they know can defend themselves, provide for themselves, etc. Basically, the entire traditional values of masculinity.

Our nervous system has evolved to help us identify where we are on that hierarchy. In previous times, you’d be one of these: king, chief, royal guard, artisan, commoner, or slave. Today, you are either first class, second class, or third citizen, based on your earnings and possessions.

It wasn’t any different back then. Only 20% of men got all the women. Or shall I put it more appropriately: only 20% of men attracted all the women.

The Pareto Principle seems to be observable in today’s world of online dating too with data showing that “the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.” It is a natural law that takes its course.

Let’s try another thought experiment. As a woman, you want a man. That is 51% of the global male population. You want a rich man. In 2021, only 21% of men in the US made above 100,000$. That means you are now picking from 21%. You want the man to be tall. In the U.S. population, about 14.5% of all men are six feet or over. But out of the 14%, let’s say only 5% make over 100,000$ a year. Out of the 5%, you want someone that is funny, smells nice, has a good fashion sense, is romantic, loves books, etc. You’ve skimmed your preference down to the 1% of men that possess all these qualities. But let’s say this hypothetical Prince Charming exists. Should he settle for just you? And why?

Now, we should assume that 80% of women have drunk the same fantasy elixir as you, and they also want their men to have these qualities too. They want a bad boy who is also good, a funny bad boy, a half good half bad – half boy, who loves your mom, takes you on dates during the weekend, a good friend with your friends but never attracted to any of them, a dashing glamourous sight of a man. A proper knight in a shining armour. Replies to your texts fast and constantly give you reassurance. Has a high sense of humour, a sprinkle of dark humour, and he perfectly understands the linguistics of sarcasm. Klaus Mikaelson at night, Henry Cavil During the day, Levi Ackerman in the morning, and Jungkook or Jimin during the weekend. A perfect man. The 1%.

As a man in today’s world who wants a woman, you know for certain that regardless of how many traditional masculine values or chivalry you lack, there’s still a chance for you to attract women when you have money. So, status is important to you. If an ugly rich man can have 12 wives because he can provide for them, then you may also try your hands at being rich. You can somehow buy your way up the hierarchy to be among the 5% of men that attract all the women.

Status is important to men. From our primitive ages, women have been choosing partners based on qualities that only limited men possess. If I were a woman, I’d probably hold similar standards. We didn’t have the birth control pill until the 1950s. The consequences of settling with the wrong partner are grave for women. That’s just how things are. The Pareto Principle naturally just takes course. 20% of women attract the top 5% of men. The inequality is always starkly obvious.

Financial capability and material possessions are markers of the status of a man. It is a marker of desirability among potential partners. This is true because a great philosopher once said, “broke men don’t deserve no pussy.” This became the internet meme for the month.

Lots of studies have shown that there is a correlation between economic inequality and criminality. When men feel that system has been rigged to favour the minority or to stop them from being successful, they would engage in activities that seek to destroy the system.

Generally speaking, young men engage in violence and criminal activities when their upward mobility has been truncated by systems that have been put in place to keep them down. Additionally, some studies have shown that the higher the rate of inequality in any given locality, the higher the rate of criminality. 80% of all crimes are committed by 20% of men.

In societies where everyone is rich, or where everyone is poor, there are usually little or no criminal activities at all. This, studies have shown.

But, what happens in the extreme case where higher power steps in to enforce equality on the people? Or, say, attempt to manipulate this natural law?

Holodomor

Karl Marx had lots of beautiful philosophies. Some of them, I agree with. For example, he claimed that wealth ultimately is accrued in the hands of a few. He was right here. But he forgot that this isn’t simply an attribute of capitalism. Remove capitalism and enact a new economic system – the same thing will happen. Most of his philosophies, I disagree with. Marx never considered the idea of 20/80.

While it is the case that not everyone plays fair in an open market, it would be wrong to assume that every successful person is only successful because they “stole” from the least fortunate. Drake didn’t become the most streamed artist by “oppressing” anyone. Leonardo Di Caprio, Beethoven, Apple, Mandela, Tesla, etc. I wouldn’t say they owe their success to the oppression of others. Being among the top 20% isn’t the easiest thing.

In defence of Karl Marx, he hoped that the socialist revolution would begin in an advanced society, not in a farmyard like the Russian Empire of the 90s.

Socialism is an ideology which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. In simpler terms, no private ownership. The highest stage of socialism is communism, where equality is enforced based on a person’s ability. Beautiful idea, right? But that is all it was, until the Bolshevik Communist party of Russia took hold of office in 1922, following a revolution that started in 1917.

Russia was a feudalist state. A feudal state is a type of social and political system in which landholders provide land to tenants in exchange for their loyalty and service. A relationship between lords and serfs. A feudal state is usually agrarian. In that, its society is based on producing and maintaining crops and farmland. Just like much of Africa and the rest of the world before the Industrial Revolution.

Even in its feudal state, a small minority of peasant farmers produced the best quality and quantity of food for the rest of Russia. These farmers were the Kulak Farmers.

Following the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1923, Joseph Stalin took the office of the prime minister of the newly established USSR in place of the Russian Empire. Stalin was very radical in enacting socialist ideologies. He enforced the collectivization of everything. Peasants were forced to cultivate on collective farms. Those that resisted were either executed, persecuted, exiled, or deported to the cold region of Siberia.

He claimed that the successful Kulak Farmers owed their success to the oppression of others. Lots of them were killed, and most of them were deported. Over 6 million Ukrainians died as a result of this. They simply starved to death.

In the name of equality, 20% of successful farmers were no more. Millions of people died of starvation. This act is recognized today as a man-made famine. In the ethnic Ukrainian language, this act is called Holodomor. It translates roughly to “death by starvation”. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union.

Stalin became one of the worst totalitarians of the 20th century.

This same outcome also played out in China. It even gave birth to the culture of Chinese people eating pets. During the reign of Mao Zedong between 1949 – 1976, his socialist policies got rid of the rich 20% of peasant farmers, and he also enforced collectivization on the peasants. This naturally created a famine that led to the death of over 50m people.

The starving people had to resort to eating their pets, horses, and in rare cases, even other people.

Then this same principle of forced equality was tried in Cambodia, North Korea, Angola, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc… Guess what they all had in common? That’s right. They all gave birth to totalitarian leaders. Add to that, lots of people died.

The argument, each time any of these leaders fail to establish an equal socialist utopia, is simply “that wasn’t real socialism.” How many more experiments or corpses do we need to prove that the beautiful idea should only remain all it is – a beautiful idea? Do we want equality to be enforced? If profit or status is removed, would there be incentives for anyone to do anything?

If you read my previous article where I explored the nature of humans, you’d understand that we aren’t built to be equal.

- 20% of employees are responsible for 80% of the results.

- 20% of students have grades of 80% or higher.

- 80% of the pollution originates from 20% of all factories.

- 80% of tax money comes from about 20% of society.

- 80% of all Internet traffic belongs to 20% of websites.

Now 20% of all the totalitarians that have ever existed are responsible for 80% of all the deaths that are a result of leadership. Nature simply takes course.

What do you think, should equality be enforced? Or, like me, you believe equality, just like diversity, is the spice of life? Can equality even be enforced? In some cases, it can. In most cases, we shouldn’t want it.

Epilogue

Officially, this is my longest article yet. Either in quality or quantity, I try to outdo myself each time I write an article.

I appreciate the fact that you’ve read up till this part. I can only imagine how much patience it requires to pay attention to every aspect of this article. I never take my audience for granted.

From the feedback and comments I’ve gotten, my last article on the origin of good and evil is the best one I’ve written. Whether you know it or not, you contribute greatly to my success as a writer.

Once again, thank you so much for your support. Liking, sharing, reading, commenting – for all of it. I appreciate you.

Remember to comment and share with your friends. You can find me here on Twitter. Cheers!