3 ms·
>I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if their is mobility between the income groups I'm not sure how you can't
by knuththetruth 9y ago
>I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if their is mobility between the income groups
I'm not sure how you can't be arguing the same thing I am. The income inequality is what creates the immobility. This is demonstrated by other developed countries where there is less income inequality and greater social mobility, as others have pointed out. Can you elaborate?
- ameister14 9y agoAre you sure the income inequality creates the immobility and isn't just linked to the immobility in other ways? The demonstration of other countries implies the latter, but even that is really hard to prove.
- knuththetruth 9y agoYes, because history. There are no historical examples where wealth was held by the few and social mobility increased broadly. Only when resources are more evenly distributed among social classes has that ever happened.
- loeg 9y agoThe graphed figure is not wealth, but income. The (great-)grandparent poster is suggesting that as long as people bounce between income levels, i.e., they have some higher paying years and some lower paying years, it has a smoothing effect on the net income inequality.
- hueving 9y ago>Yes, because history. There are no historical examples where wealth was held by the few and social mobility increased broadly Uh... The industrial revolution. You seem to be confusing wealth inequality with income inequality which might be muddying your arguments.