37 ms·
You write about a system that doesn't exist (everyone earning the same), then point out that wealth inequality is not surprising and that articles like this "ma
by Scandiravian 6y ago
You write about a system that doesn't exist (everyone earning the same), then point out that wealth inequality is not surprising and that articles like this "makes for good clickbait", but what's your point?
Is it that we should simply ignore wealth inequality and the societal issues it generates?
- db48x 6y agoThe point is that wealth inequality would still exist, even if every person in the world earned the same amount in their lifetime. The equality of outcomes of giving everyone the same amount of money would not lead to the equality of outcomes of everyone having the same amount of wealth. You can only get wealth equality by taking away wealth from everyone. That's not going to fix any "societal issues", it will simply cause more problems. See also all past attempts.
- newfeatureok 6y agoI don’t see your point at all - even if you were to control for any age of your choosing I’m sure you’d still see similar distributions. Your last point also requires some evidence since it is extreme.
- Scandiravian 6y agoNo one has at any point said that the goal is for everyone to have the same amount of wealth, so I'm not going to argue against, what's clearly a straw-man For your last point I'll have to go with a "citation needed" The Scandinavian countries and many other European countries in general, have a high level of wealth redistribution and have higher education levels, higher voter turnout, less crime, and higher standards of living than the US