2 ms·

I think most people aren't terribly concerned about income/wealth inequality. The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources

by Zak 10y ago

I think most people aren't terribly concerned about income/wealth inequality. The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Rather than inequality, I think people are more concerned about some combination of: * Poverty - that some people don't have enough resources to meet their basic needs * Lack of opportunity - that for too many people, working hard and making reasonable decisions is unlikely to result in a proportional gain in wealth * Corruption - that wealth results in undue influence over the political process and control over the lives of others * Unjust rewards - that some activities which arguably, or definitely cause a net harm to society or a reduction in total wealth are rewarded, and that some beneficial activities are not rewarded, or rewarded insufficiently

drabiega 10y ago
> The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Yeah, pretty much everyone of the left would reject that extreme. The progressive viewpoint here is simply that the economic system is tilted too far in favor of money accumulating upwards and needs to be pushed back somewhat. Other than that, there is a lot of variety in how far and what the method of doing so should look like.
- Zak 10y ago
  The author of the article makes a passing reference to "radical egalitarianism", which Wikipedia doesn't say much about, but associates with equality of outcome and communism. It's possible that something along those lines is, in fact the author's position. I'd be interested in seeing if there are a significant number of people who are fundamentally concerned with wealth inequality per se rather than poverty, lack of opportunity, corruption and unjust rewards.

by Zak 10y ago

drabiega 10y ago

> The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Yeah, pretty much everyone of the left would reject that extreme. The progressive viewpoint here is simply that the economic system is tilted too far in favor of money accumulating upwards and needs to be pushed back somewhat. Other than that, there is a lot of variety in how far and what the method of doing so should look like.

Zak 10y ago
The author of the article makes a passing reference to "radical egalitarianism", which Wikipedia doesn't say much about, but associates with equality of outcome and communism. It's possible that something along those lines is, in fact the author's position. I'd be interested in seeing if there are a significant number of people who are fundamentally concerned with wealth inequality per se rather than poverty, lack of opportunity, corruption and unjust rewards.