6 ms·

Why do we concentrate on wealth inequality so much? What's wrong about some people being ultra rich and just well off? Would it be better if everyone we're equa

Why do we concentrate on wealth inequality so much? What's wrong about some people being ultra rich and just well off? Would it be better if everyone we're equally poor?

Retric 8y ago
Many resources like land are finite. For someone to have more land others must have less. Unfortunately, that extends to things like access to politions and the ability to shape laws not just arbitrary numbers in a bank account. Extreme wealth inequality is less about a few people having more than it is about many people having less. Billionaires exist in most countries, it’s the amount of poverty that’s the issue in the US not the wealthy.
- nilskidoo 8y ago
  And we need to address that the recent issue of the college admissions scandal is by no means limited to academia. Wealth abuses each and every industry in similar or more damaging ways. Even the Daily Show tried to play it off as mere helicopter parenting.
- seibelj 8y ago
  Good thing we can build tall buildings, so each owner in the building can own a piece of the same land.
- coredog64 8y ago
  If you believe the US Census Bureau, the rate of people living in poverty has been on the decline since the end of the last recession. The World Bank says similar things about the global poverty rate, with that number hitting a record low of 10% in 2015.
truckerbill 8y ago
Not having a good start in life is the root cause of so much crime, disorder and other social strife. Wouldn't you rather live in a world with less murder at the expense of fewer superyachts? Also the more we allow the entire population to contribute to our collective progress , the more exciting stuff we get to see materialise. People don't seem to mention that side of things much.
thefounder 8y ago
The whole point is to have some balance not to make everyone poor. Surely you can see that the world is unfair. If you are the only rich guy from the street and the rest are dead poor you should expect to get robbed and stabbed pretty soon. The same goes with governments/systems. Balance is not only a moral thing to do, it is necessary to survive.
eightysixfour 8y ago
We concentrate on it because it appears to be an unchecked positive feedback loop in a zero-sum game. Historically, extreme concentrations of wealth have led to unrest and/or collapse.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  Sorry but manufacturing of goods and services is not a zero sum game. Humankind has been making something from nothing since the dawn of the ages.
  - freewilly1040 8y ago
    Many things are, like property and spots in elite colleges (which serve as gatekeepers it the upper echelons of society)
    - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
      Should the answer be to build more houses and open more good colleges?
- repolfx 8y ago
  Not necessarily. The USA has always had 'extreme' differences between rich and poor, as has the UK. Neither has had a poverty-driven revolution. Most revolutions have actually been about arbitrary and brutal abuse of power rather than mere wealth differences.
nilskidoo 8y ago
I don't believe con-men should be applauded, no.
analog31 8y ago
Wealth confers political power, and potentially, the power to act above the law. Of course there is a balancing act, because "equally poor" is hardly a preferable alternative, but the imbalance of power can be offset to some extent by a certain amount of redistribution.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Why do we concentrate on wealth inequality so much? Because, empirically, it's a significant contributor to disutility, and a visibly selective experience of disutility is a significant contributor to social conflict. The author directly cites this—in the form of risk of revolution—as his concern, so it's if that this question comes up. > Would it be better if everyone we're equally poor? Maybe no inequality and ever increasing inequality aren't the only options.
- 0815test 8y ago
  > Because, empirically, it's a significant contributor to disutility Evidence? Once one's basic needs are taken care of, by far the biggest contributor to disutility and deviance/conflict is social exclusion. Now, it is also the case that social exclusion/marginalisation is significantly correlated with an unequal society - but that's a contingent fact about the late-stage-capitalist social structure we're actually in; if you actually want to fix the problem in the most effective way, by far the most sensible thing to do is to focus on social capital directly, and thus on countering social exclusion/marginalization. Sure, inequality talk is incredibly popular due to how it panders to envy, but this is not something we should encourage as it makes the actual issues a lot worse!

Why do we concentrate on wealth inequality so much? What's wrong about some people being ultra rich and just well off? Would it be better if everyone we're equally poor?

Retric 8y ago

Many resources like land are finite. For someone to have more land others must have less. Unfortunately, that extends to things like access to politions and the ability to shape laws not just arbitrary numbers in a bank account. Extreme wealth inequality is less about a few people having more than it is about many people having less. Billionaires exist in most countries, it’s the amount of poverty that’s the issue in the US not the wealthy.

nilskidoo 8y ago
And we need to address that the recent issue of the college admissions scandal is by no means limited to academia. Wealth abuses each and every industry in similar or more damaging ways. Even the Daily Show tried to play it off as mere helicopter parenting.
seibelj 8y ago
Good thing we can build tall buildings, so each owner in the building can own a piece of the same land.
coredog64 8y ago
If you believe the US Census Bureau, the rate of people living in poverty has been on the decline since the end of the last recession. The World Bank says similar things about the global poverty rate, with that number hitting a record low of 10% in 2015.

truckerbill 8y ago

Not having a good start in life is the root cause of so much crime, disorder and other social strife. Wouldn't you rather live in a world with less murder at the expense of fewer superyachts? Also the more we allow the entire population to contribute to our collective progress , the more exciting stuff we get to see materialise. People don't seem to mention that side of things much.

thefounder 8y ago

The whole point is to have some balance not to make everyone poor. Surely you can see that the world is unfair. If you are the only rich guy from the street and the rest are dead poor you should expect to get robbed and stabbed pretty soon. The same goes with governments/systems. Balance is not only a moral thing to do, it is necessary to survive.

eightysixfour 8y ago

We concentrate on it because it appears to be an unchecked positive feedback loop in a zero-sum game. Historically, extreme concentrations of wealth have led to unrest and/or collapse.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
Sorry but manufacturing of goods and services is not a zero sum game. Humankind has been making something from nothing since the dawn of the ages.
- freewilly1040 8y ago
  Many things are, like property and spots in elite colleges (which serve as gatekeepers it the upper echelons of society)
  - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
    Should the answer be to build more houses and open more good colleges?
repolfx 8y ago
Not necessarily. The USA has always had 'extreme' differences between rich and poor, as has the UK. Neither has had a poverty-driven revolution. Most revolutions have actually been about arbitrary and brutal abuse of power rather than mere wealth differences.

nilskidoo 8y ago

I don't believe con-men should be applauded, no.

analog31 8y ago

Wealth confers political power, and potentially, the power to act above the law. Of course there is a balancing act, because "equally poor" is hardly a preferable alternative, but the imbalance of power can be offset to some extent by a certain amount of redistribution.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Why do we concentrate on wealth inequality so much? Because, empirically, it's a significant contributor to disutility, and a visibly selective experience of disutility is a significant contributor to social conflict. The author directly cites this—in the form of risk of revolution—as his concern, so it's if that this question comes up. > Would it be better if everyone we're equally poor? Maybe no inequality and ever increasing inequality aren't the only options.

0815test 8y ago
> Because, empirically, it's a significant contributor to disutility Evidence? Once one's basic needs are taken care of, by far the biggest contributor to disutility and deviance/conflict is social exclusion. Now, it is also the case that social exclusion/marginalisation is significantly correlated with an unequal society - but that's a contingent fact about the late-stage-capitalist social structure we're actually in; if you actually want to fix the problem in the most effective way, by far the most sensible thing to do is to focus on social capital directly, and thus on countering social exclusion/marginalization. Sure, inequality talk is incredibly popular due to how it panders to envy, but this is not something we should encourage as it makes the actual issues a lot worse!