Income and Wealth Inequality: Crash Course Economics

Income and Wealth Inequality: Crash Course Economics

Inequality is a big, big subject. There’s racial inequality, gender inequality, and lots and lots of other kinds of inequality. This is Econ, so we’re going to talk about wealth inequality and income inequality. There’s no question that economic inequality is real. But there is disagreement as to whether income inequality is a problem, and what can or should be done about it.


Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at

Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:

Mark, Eric Kitchen, Jessica Wode, Jeffrey Thompson, Steve Marshall, Moritz Schmidt, Robert Kunz, Tim Curwick, Jason A Saslow, SR Foxley, Elliot Beter, Jacob Ash, Christian, Jan Schmid, Jirat, Christy Huddleston, Daniel Baulig, Chris Peters, Anna-Ester Volozh, Ian Dundore, Caleb Weeks

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook –
Twitter –
Tumblr –
Support Crash Course on Patreon:

CC Kids:

You may also like...

20 Responses

  1. darkdragonsoul99 says:

    I’d like to see people explain this little fact without the people act the
    bottom the people at the top couldn’t even do their jobs

  2. ANDELE3025 says:

    Video – “capitalism is evil”
    Comments – “capitalism is evil”
    Me – OK furfags, take your communism that his historically failed every
    time unlike free market capitalism which has worked for 3 decently long
    periods before idiots like you voted for the loss of its democratic roots
    and turned into whales and sheep, now please proceed to kill yourselves off
    to help and fix intellectual inequality of the world by ridding it of
    intentional stupidity.

  3. Lucas Robert Hansen Jantunen (Jobnm) says:

    A dane be like: “Inequality, what’s that?

  4. Deric Riopel says:

    Does she have a statue of Karl Marx on her desk?

  5. Vincent Wei says:

    People who complain about how this video is liberal propaganda and how
    inequality is inevitable, how Doctors should earn more than mcdonalds
    workers (btw i totally agree with that) should watch the whole damn video.
    In 4:55 of this video it explicitly stated that yes, while income
    inequality is undoubtedly inevitable, as different jobs have different
    salaries, to sieve out the intelligent and hard working people from the
    normal/dumb ones from a population, encouraging them to work hard to
    achieve a high standard of living. But, there should be an ideal amount of
    income inequality for that, which is hypothesised as the Lorenz curve. Like
    a CEo shouldn’t be earning a few million US a month whilst a factory worker
    earns like 2500 USD.

  6. Vincent Wei says:

    Comments about how rich people deserved to be rich and poor people deserved
    to poor is simply not true. A), genetics can determine a lot about whether
    you succeed in life, by granting you an abnormal amount of intelligence
    right out from the day you were born. B), the offspring of rich people have
    a tendency to remain so, and that of poor people vice versa, as rich
    parents will be able to grant a lot more resources to a child then poor
    parents can. E.g Sending them to good schools, enrolling them on
    extracurricular activities. c) Theres also racial, gender and age
    inequality. No place in the world has managed complete 100 percent gender
    inequality, although Nordic countries have come pretty darn close. Plenty
    of statistics support gender discrimination in most jobs, even those
    dominated by women, and including those that we believe women to be better
    at (e.g teachers). Racial inequality, pff i don’t need to talk about that
    right? Also kind of like gender inequality, perhaps even worse. Finally, we
    get on to age inequality. Western culture promotes independence, and the
    elderly are often stereotyped as close minded, ignorant, withdrawn, and
    senile, and worst of all, dependent on their offspring. Companies are much
    more likely to hire young people because they are believed to be more
    “easily taught” and “flexible”. Whilst age can certainly make one less
    adept at some jobs, old people are better in others. This may be the one
    that turns out to be the biggest problem in the end, as many European
    countries, for example, have mandatory retirement ages, forcing the elderly
    to be completely dependent on social welfare. And the population of elderly
    in developed countries will only continue to increase, putting pressure on
    the ever shrinking number of productive workers remaining. Governments
    should utilize old people.

  7. AndreT says:

    Geez this youtube video actually perpetuates the issue. While tackling
    inequality from an American stand point, the rest of us in Africa is still,
    and once again left in the dark.
    “You might be surprised to learn that the US doesn’t have the biggest
    inequality in the world”
    Wait, who the fuck was surprised by this ?? Please come forward.
    Have you ever heard of South Africa or Brazil ?

  8. John Krytus says:

    Sincere question: What effect does corporate welfare have on income

  9. stenbak88 says:

    Liberal propaganda

  10. Kaptain “14” Germany says:

    Libtards. Of course there’s inequality in all things, as nothing/nobody is
    equal i.e. “the same”.

    There’s no income inequality. Women cost a company more (those who get
    pregnant and actually give birth to their children) and said companies
    compensate for this loss by lower wages.

    Thank the gods I don’t have to live in Librard central, the USA.

  11. Scott Baker says:

    For shame: framing the cause of inequality as a result of differences in
    education, skills and even race/gender/culture ignores the biggest cause of
    all – monopoly over natural resources (called Land in classical economics)
    and monetary creation (literally, the ability of institutions, mainly
    banks, to create money as debt). No one gets to be a billionaire without a
    monopoly over something, usually Land (which includes commodities like oil,
    copper, etc.), though in modern times this can be intellectual capital too,
    like Bill Gates and Windows OS. And no institutions can get as rich as
    banks without a monopoly on money-creation whenever they make loans. This
    could, and has, been temporarily taken away when countries took back their
    sovereign right to create money without banks, as Lincoln did for the U.S.
    during the Civil Way, creating $450m in the nation’s first Legal Tender,
    which was 40% of the Federal budget then. Today, hardly any mainstream
    economics course talks about either of these monopolies, but they are key
    to analysis from economists from Thomas Picketty to Joseph Stiglitz, and in
    the past even Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed that landlords should not get
    undeserved rent on the land (location) that ought to belong to the people
    whose demand created it. Money-creation, of course, was so critical to the
    creation of our country that the Founders included a Coinage Clause in the
    Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 5) allowing the Treasury to create
    paper money, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman.
    Until these issues are addressed, the wrong-headed view of money
    accumulation being synonymous with money earning will continue, to the
    detriment of society. As Thomas Picketty observed, having surveyed Western
    economies for centuries, when rent-seeking gets too high not only is there
    social unrest, but economies stagnate and stop growing. It is not in the
    rent-seekers’ interest (in both senses of the word) to have growth and
    innovation. They only want to collect the rent, and growth and innovation
    means that income might go to someone else, and must be suppressed.

  12. Andrew Singleton says:

    I am opposed to deregulation since it just encourages the sort of behavior
    that lead to the housing bubble. Combine that with CEOs making thousands of
    times more than their workers with payments on leaving the company going
    into the hundreds of millions and you have companies who’s leaders don’t
    really care if the company survives long term so long as they themselves
    walk away with money.

    I have my fears about Basic Income and worry that the ‘market’ will go ‘OK
    everyone gets a minimum of x dollars. we will increase our prices by y
    because people can pay for that right?’ IE basic income looking nice on
    paper but the basline returning to zero and i haven’t heard a convincing
    argument that won’t happen.

    I want it tried though because as is? Things are broken and stripping
    regulation out will only allow the mega rich who can aford to do things
    small startups and individuals can’t.

  13. reicirith says:

    It’s disgusting when there are people who can’t make enough to feed their
    families for a day, and people who have more money than they can spend for
    lifetimes, all living in the same country, state, or even city. How can
    people with so much money feel justified when so many others are having
    such a hard time, despite working their ass off?

  14. Mark Meadows says:

    As an educational channel please remember that people should be referred to
    as “who,” not “that.”
    At 2:02 the script should be: “Branko Milanovic, an economist *who*
    specializes in inequality…”

  15. butterflycaught900 says:

    “taxing the rich won’t be as effective as reducing regulation”

    Fewer regulations, hmmm? I think I will take this opportunity to tighten up
    my company’s standards and shrink my profit margin, costing my shareholders
    valuable dividends.

    Why, you ask? Because this is a TRULY free market. It’s the right thing to

  16. zsmartin7 says:

    why is it desirable that income be equal…

  17. zsmartin7 says:

    moral of this video “Poverty is bad”…. gee how deep..

  18. fpetes says:

    Thank you for focusing on income equality and not wealth.Redistributing or
    “resolving” wealth is a terrible idea and will result in significant issues
    to the point of people protecting it – by whatever means is necessary.

  19. elnelinqui says:

    education is the key but the college is too high. Must find a way to lower
    the cost or better yet, free education in exchange of our taxes being
    raised… unless the countries are willing to concentrate their attention
    on education and not on their army forces.

  20. Chris Kruschke says:

    It so sucks that there are have’s and have nots! I should be paid just as
    much as a CEO of any big company – even though I don’t want to put in a lot
    of effort or work two jobs or even work a full day at whatever low skill
    job I feel like working at or take out loans and goto college or strive to
    better myself or save my money and stay within a budget or live without a
    fancy phone/tv/car/cable tv/high-speed wifi/etc just like my parents did
    and their parents did and people for 100’s of years did in order to
    succeed. No! I should get free college and free phones and free health care
    and free rent and be paid a “living wage” (with that number determined by
    what “I” think I need) just for being a wonderful person – oh – and all
    that should be paid by people who I think are undeserving of their higher
    income simply because they work hard at one or two or three jobs and got an
    education (in a valuable trade) and saved money and lived thrifty. You
    people make me laugh…