Haha, identical incomes is what Scott Winship would call Denmark. I've recently got exposed to someone questioning whether or not we should even care about ine

Haha, identical incomes is what Scott Winship would call Denmark. I've recently got exposed to someone questioning whether or not we should even care about inequality, a provocative idea for sure. Hillsdale college had a worthy lecture posted earlier this month. Scott Winship talks about Intergenerational mobility as an interesting orthogonal concept (https://youtu.be/vDUhpaO1YCE?t=305 https://youtu.be/vDUhpaO1YCE?t=305) William Watson says in the same lecture "The question I was assigned 'Do we want income inequality', just so it's clear I don't care about inequality. What I want is fairness, or equity." (https://youtu.be/vDUhpaO1YCE?t=3131 https://youtu.be/vDUhpaO1YCE?t=3131). A classic one I like on the topic is Sowell's manna from heaven slant on income and its distribution... Peter Robinson: Intellectuals and Society once again, “The very phrase income distribution is tendentious. Wealth can be created only after capital and labor have reconciled their competing claims and agreed to terms on which they can operate together in the production of wealth”. Income distribution, the very phrase is tendentious how come? Thomas Sowell: Income is not distributed, and newspapers are distributed. Social security checks are distributed and one time milk was distributed. Income is not distributed, people earn it directly from those for whom they provide some good or service. And, the argument made by many people you see, is that the, it’s a question of capital and labor have conflicting interests and dividing up the income. No, no, there is no income to divide up before they first reconcile their conflicting interest and decide on what terms they’re going to produce that income. There is no preexisting, there’s no manna from heaven for them to fight over.