Why Americans are failing to reckon with economic inequality

“Beliefs can be powerful,” says Emerson Collective Fellow Mona Chalabi, “But beliefs equipped with facts can be much more powerful.” Chalabi, a data journalist and illustrator, has used her distinctive visual style and analytic approach to proffer facts on all kinds of issues about which people hold strong beliefs: Inequities in COVID-era New York City. The grey-green divide. America’s most popular flowers. Her latest work interrogates economic inequality in the U.S., and she is currently writing a book on the topic. In a recent Fellows Friday conversation with Emerson Collective Managing Director Dan Tangherlini, she discussed Americans’ incomplete understanding—or, at times, willful ignorance—of their day-to-day socioeconomic realities.

Dan Tangherlini: What's the data set on economic inequality you wished we had that you haven't been able to find? 

Mona Chalabi: This is something that I've been thinking about a lot. The book I am writing is structured around income. But as all of us know, you have that friend who might be working a very low-paid nonprofit job—but they have family wealth. We know on an intuitive level that wealth is a far better predictor of our economic security than income is. And so I think this would be really, really interesting: Imagine if I knew the wealth of every single one of my neighbors.  And, ok, this data set definitely doesn’t exist. But how would it change our interaction, just on this microcommunity level, the next time someone needs something, if you knew our relative power and responsibility to support this individual?

Is that a really weird answer?

Dan Tangherlini: I think it's a socially mind-blowing answer! When we talk about income inequality, we tend to talk about it in terms of “the 1%,” but I understand that you’re trying to get people to talk less about the 1%.

Mona Chalabi: So I want to be really, really clear that it's not that I don't think that we should continue to focus on the 1%. What I think is that we’re not really having a conversation below that 1%, even though in our day-to-day lives we’re hyper-aware of income discrepancies. 

We’ve all had that experience where a friend asks you out to dinner and it's a place that is slightly beyond your budget. The check comes and you're not quite sure how to split it. In friendships and romantic relationships, even between family members, we are very aware of the differences in economic power between individuals. But we're not very good at having those conversations in a way that actually redresses some of that economic inequality. 

Dan Tangherlini: This dinner is kind of a metaphor for broader income disparity in our society. 

Mona Chalabi: Absolutely.

Dan Tangherlini: This is something that’s very interesting to me because of EC’s work up here in DC, in Congress Heights, that I’m involved with. We're trying to systematically include the community in the wealth generated by an economic development project. Historically, the model we see is one of systematic exclusion, with fewer and fewer people having more and more. But those structural impediments are not always apparent, and I think your work is making people more aware of them.

Mona Chalabi: I hope so. And I think part of that is a cultural shift, even a shift in language and our shared vocabulary. When I first moved to the U.S., I found it utterly bewildering how everyone described themselves as middle class. Occasionally you'll meet someone who is absolutely filthy rich who'll describe themselves as “upper middle class.” I think it really speaks to a discomfort in this country with showing your cards about where you truly sit on the income ladder.

Dan Tangherlini: Yeah. Well, I once went to a fast food takeout place and the smallest drink they sold was “large.” So maybe it's that thing.

Mona Chalabi: It’s interesting that more is always good in American culture.

Dan Tangherlini: For soda, but clearly not for telling people about your income. You don't meet a lot of people who say, "Oh yeah, I'm definitely in the 1%.”

Mona Chalabi: No, because to do that would be to expose themselves to a responsibility to do something with that power. Basically what people are afraid of is if I tell you that I'm very, very wealthy, the next time you bump into some kind of financial difficulty, you are going to come knocking on my door. And I would argue if you have that kind of a relationship with an individual, where they feel like they can come knocking on your door—maybe all the more reason for you to actually be honest and upfront about what your wealth is. When I go out to eat with friends who I know have less resources than me, I'm considerate about where it is that we are going, if they feel comfortable for me to cover the bill, or if they would prefer for us to split it. 

Dan Tangherlini: You are talking about pushing on societal norms, that, when you add them up, have led in part to this massive income disparity. Are you optimistic about the possibility of a new set of norms, or a new set of approaches, to reduce this disparity? 

Mona Chalabi: I feel really optimistic about the fact that some of these shifts are happening already. Even our language about “nepo babies,” which is about the idea that you can't claim success without being transparent about the legs up you had. I also think it’s interesting the way our personal records and the traces that we're leaving online make it harder and harder for people to obfuscate their wealth, their income, the opportunities that they had growing up. For an older generation, the measures were things like, which neighborhood did you grow up in? What kind of school did you go to? Today there are still indicators of wealth, but I think they're becoming finer and more specific over time as more and more of our data lives online.