3 ms·

Alright, narrower spreads in economic inequality appears to connote greater overall happiness in the measured society. Perhaps attributable to the averaging and

Alright, narrower spreads in economic inequality appears to connote greater overall happiness in the measured society. Perhaps attributable to the averaging and not representative of the outliers, or demonstrable of modality, but that might be a separate argument. Northern European countries are famed for ranking near the top. The degree to which a society is advanced can be measured in part by how it treats its most disadvantaged members. And in the long run, we help ourselves by helping each other. But (playing the devil's advocate here) I'm interested in equalizing opportunity, not in equal outcome and artificial fairness. If this notion is ridiculous, would somebody care to enlighten / disillusion?

Avicebron 6y ago
Because structurally one cannot do the first without doing the latter. If I have 100bn, my leverage over the people who help generated that is disproportionate. I can set up a self perpetuating lobby to government to make laws that make generations stuck in a cyclical system of poverty. Thus it's easier to exploit and make more money. Rinse. Repeat. By better maintaining a relatively tight "artificial fairness" it prevents the system from falling into one of the two extremes - everyone poor and struggling and one extremely powerful elite and the serfs.