The paper this points to is the "OECD FORUM ON TACKLING INEQUALITY". (capitalization in the paper) Post-colonic: "What drives it and how can policy tackle it?"

The paper this points to is the "OECD FORUM ON TACKLING INEQUALITY". (capitalization in the paper) Post-colonic: "What drives it and how can policy tackle it?" (I had to decapitalize.) The paper explores a large number of factors, but it is diffult to see how the base premise is anything other than Inequality needs to be 'tackled'. Where destruction of the middle class is happening, that needs to be tackled. Extreme poverty needs to be tackled. Creation of a middle class in countries that lack it needs to be tackled. Inequality, however, is a metric, and one that is oblivious to whether things are getting better or worse. Successfully tackling inequality says nothing about whether the lives of people have gotten better or worse, it merely tracks uniformity of outcome. I'm very supportive of policies that prevent social instablity, and poor outcomes. My libertarian streak is weak at best, and centered around a distaste for government interfering in social policy. I'm unhappy with framing this metric as problem, because it easily falls into the trap of helping make people unhappy with otherwise good outcomes. The metric used is inherently oblivous to outcomes that I think matter. Churchill's "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." applies here. I can agree we should have distributive tax policies due to falling real wages at the bottom, yet that point is obliterated by starting the debate with a relative metric that I do not agree should drive the policy.