The concentration of wealth has some observable effects that we probably don't want - for example, real estate prices. Not that expensive real estate is bad in

The concentration of wealth has some observable effects that we probably don't want - for example, real estate prices. Not that expensive real estate is bad in itself, but people who work in areas where they can't afford to live - for instance, a hypothetical cop in NY / LA / SF - have three obvious choices: 1> commute, sometimes for hours one-way. One could argue that policing outside of one's neighborhood is bad policing, but for the most part, long commutes are just a drag. And probably will last only as long as it takes for a job closer to home to open up. So now it's a turnover problem. 2> rent control or other "low-income" concession. Waiting lists are long, developers resist creating more supply, and always have to consider the risk of arbitrage. 3> extra jobs / graft - competition for outside security work is pretty tight, and I'm sure we can all agree another cop on the take is something the world doesn't need. We could try a variant of option 2 and provide housing subsidies for certain professions, something I think the FBI does for agents in certain areas, but then we run the risk of creating castes. I doubt anyone would entertain subsidizing a barista's rent just so they wouldn't have to commute 3 hours to a Starbucks in Beverly Hills. But it might happen for a cop (probably not.) The degenerate case is all the cops leave and the rich have the opportunity to fend for themselves.