3 ms·
> Literally nobody is arguing for that. That's a humongous straw man, it's the same straw man pg used in his original article, and it's complete nonsense. "Redu
by carc 11y ago
> Literally nobody is arguing for that. That's a humongous straw man, it's the same straw man pg used in his original article, and it's complete nonsense. "Reduce income inequality" does not mean eliminate all income inequality.
So you seem to agree that income inequality can be a good thing. If you didn't, you'd want everyone to have the same income. Maybe I misunderstood PG's essay, but the main takeaway I got was that income inequality CAN be a good thing for a society, and that the income inequality caused by successful startups are not an important enough problem (if it is even a problem) to society for us to try to focus on it.
- eridius 11y agoI'm not saying income inequality can be a good thing. Not everything in this world has to be either bad or good. I think that income inequality in the abstract is not intrinsically bad. I don't know whether it's good. Maybe it is good to have some income inequality, at least in today's society (in a future post-scarcity society things might be different). Maybe it's not. I don't really know, and I don't care to debate that because it doesn't matter in the slightest since nobody is actually advocating for zero income inequality. But it should be pretty obvious that extreme income inequality is bad for everyone (or at least, for everyone who doesn't actually possess the extreme wealth that is causing the problem, although even there they might benefit more from having a healthy society than they do from possessing such extreme wealth). How exactly you define "extreme" is debatable, but it's simply absurd to take the position that any argument in favor of reducing income inequality is equivalent to an argument in favor of having zero income inequality across the board.