> But I think he's mixing up what people mean when they say they don't like inequality and what they actually want to do about it. Nobody is claiming we all go

> But I think he's mixing up what people mean when they say they don't like inequality and what they actually want to do about it. Nobody is claiming we all go back to being hunter/gatherers. The top comment on this thread, which predates your comment by an hour, is saying essentially that. Doesn't matter what the absolute wealth level is, only that the variance is small. The thesis of PG's article is that it's important to be precise about what we mean, because many are talking about the "robbing the rich" meaning, and the way it ought to be treated is really different. I'd say the recent shift in terminology from poverty to inequality, and in measurement from "% below an objective threshold" to "ratio between quantiles," is happening explicitly to accommodate the meaning you're disclaiming here. >Increasing the safety net, even if it means decreasing the gains, might cause more people to take the risk. Sure, but the operative thing here is increasing the safety net, which you could do without substantially closing the gap between rich and poor. In fact a stronger safety net might lead to more entrepreneurship and thus more founders getting rich, making the inequality stats worse. EDIT: clarity about top comment.