4 ms·

Is wealth inequality necessarily bad? Genuine question here.

by mrkentutbabi 5y ago

lexapro 5y ago
It's good for some, bad for a lot.
hrhrhrhrhr 5y ago
francisofascii 5y ago
Like many things in life, wealth inequality is good in moderation. Excessive wealth inequality is very bad, especially if it is due to unfair/rigged situations.
lbriner 5y ago
I assume you are implying that wealth inequality is a motivator that makes people work harder and aim higher. As with everything else in the universe, it works for some, it doesn't work for others and there are plenty who have almost literally no opportunities for whatever reason. In western nations we think that most people have basically the same opportunities but if you are from a low-income family, you are likely to have more issues with your family, potentially more emotional and financial dependents. If you have been knocked back too many times, you can lose confidence and not have anyone to encourage you. I guess in moderation, wage differences can motivate but at the point someone drops too low, they easily get caught in a cycle and then it becomes societies problem.
goodlinks 5y ago
if there was a lottery defined 99% of your life outcomes at birth would that be a bad thing? if it was possible for an accumulation of wealth within one group to essentially divide humanity in different groups that could never be changed despite skill level compitance or morals of the individuals in each group would that be bad? so someone whose great great granddaddy did something now has power for no reason. and their line of decendands wont be able to spend money as fast as they accumulate it - without even understanding how or why. wealth accumulation and private serveices (like education and healthcare) kind of make this an inevitability imho. AFAIK its not one person being paid more than another thats the issue.. its those that are paid because they were born with money and add nothing to society that i think bothers people. EDIT: a good book -The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists- for considering capitlism and the accumulation of wealth (also shock how relevant it is still 120 years later): https://freeclassicebooks.com/Robert%20Tressell/The%20Ragged%20Trousered%20Philanthropists.pdf https://freeclassicebooks.com/Robert%20Tressell/The%20Ragged...
- justinmchase 5y ago
  The level of competition is such that you have to complete across multiple lifetimes. You happen to be in a large bucket with a lot of competition you have to be top 1% in that case to even go up to the next level, which includes successfully having children and putting them on a good path to be top 1% as well. Take risks and succeed. The game is incredibly competitive and challenging and just understanding that is difficult.
  - lexapro 5y ago
    It's an impossible feat if the competition has a 10 generations head start and is not playing by any rules.
- simonh 5y ago
  >AFAIK its not one person being paid more than another thats the issue.. its those that are paid because they were born with money and add nothing to society that i think bothers people. Sure, but how many wealthy people inherited their wealth and contribute nothing? It's actually a tiny fraction. It is quite common for people from better off backgrounds to be more successful, but arguably that's result of the previous generation investing in their kids and benefiting society as a result. Most doctors come from above average wealth families for example, but we want good doctors, right? The solution to that problem is better public education, not taxing the rich into the ground. I can't imagine anyone here thinks idle trust fund babies are a wonderful benefit to society, there's a good argument for steep inheritance taxes, but equally it's not actually a significant problem in our economy. It's just a hot button topic that upsets people, but it's really a distraction.
  - goodlinks 5y ago
    Sure, sorry, they question was wide open so i gave the most generic and introductory of answers.. I trust fund babies are the extreme on the spectrum but any time your parents wealth is the biggest factor in whether or not you are a success the system is broken. imho i see many people who had support or investment from their parents doing very well when they are average or below average abilty. Education is ulimately the absolute most important thing.. a nation (or humanity as a whole) has a limited number of assest: land, infrastructure and people. the people being the most dynamic with the largest value multipliers possible. IMHO its a no brainer that you want to invest in people via education as a top priority as it will in turn multiply up all other investment (and anything that means money has a bigger sway than ability i think is a bit broken). To be clear i am not looking for the systems to be perfect, thats silly.. but i do prefer for example the idea of private education being illegal to ensure that grades actually mean something (not just how much money was spent on you). Also as a side note i belive that people who think they are worth many times more than others within their oragnisation dont understand how their value is derived and where it came from.. so while i dont seek for all salaries to be equal, i do think within an org they should all be within a certain range (e.g. highest paid no more than 5 or 10 times lowest paid). I have made / saved millions of dollars with a few hours work - but it was the existance of the org, the customers and the history that gave me the chance to do such good work more than it was my skill. people who can deliver solutions are actually more common than you think - good requirements and problems ripe for solving are thin on the ground.
holbrad 5y ago
A common argument is that relative levels of wealth don't matter too much. Does it really matter if there is some Billionaire's if the average person is doing well for themselves ? It's the average persons absolute amount of wealth going up that matters. I think the real question is: Is an uneven distribution necessary to drive absolute levels of wealth up more quickly ? What level of wealth inequality produces the most growth ?
Miner49er 5y ago
If left unchecked, it'll keep increasing until the people are forced to starve or "eat the rich".
- golergka 5y ago
  No — that relies on the assumption that we're playing a zero sum game, which we're not. There's nothing stopping wealth inequality from raising at the same time as living standards for the world's poorest do. In fact, it's exactly what's happening right now.
  - pwinnski 5y ago
    There may be nothing stopping wealth inequality from rising alongside living standards for the poorest--but that is not what is happening right now. That trend ended in the US during the 1980s, and it is no longer true that "the rich are getting richer while the poor are also getting richer." On a global scale, it may be possible to show that the world's poorest are improving. I hope so! But when people talk about income inequality, they're generally referring to national economies, where living standards for the poorest have been declining as the number of billionaires skyrockets.
    - golergka 5y ago
      I wasn't talking about US, and that's exactly the point: global poorest are rapidly improving. And the only reason why a national economy like US is seeing income inequality is exactly because in reality, it's not a "national economy". It's part of the global economy, and in particular it's the part where the richest people from all around the globe end up.
bfors 5y ago
The way I see it, it's not about the wealth itself, but the disproportionate influence in politics that it can yield. The wider the divide gets, the less democratic the country gets. Hypothetically.
Miner49er 5y ago
It's inefficient. If capital becomes too concentrated, it won't be used as effectively if distributed more. There's probably a balance, but under capitalism wealth inequality tends to increase, if left unchecked.
stonemetal12 5y ago
Wealth inequality is to complex a topic for a good\bad flag. On the one hand it is good because it shows there is a real reward for delivering something people want or need. On the other hand it can be bad when people end up homeless and starving not because the resources don't exist but because they are being horded by the wealthy.
bernawil 5y ago
Commerce, capitalism, etc. nothing works under extreme wealth inequality, prices just don't matter then. When someone has too much wealth compared to the others, it doens't even make sense to trade when the rest can only sway your wealth so little. So when arguing about inequality, we're actually arguing just how much inequality exactly the system can work with.
gremlinsinc 5y ago
Wouldn't matter one iota, if there was a guarantee on housing, food, clothing, education, and medicine. Until that becomes part of the social contract - wealth inequality for some is a prison or death sentence or the means by which one is enslaved by their wages.

Is wealth inequality necessarily bad? Genuine question here.

lexapro 5y ago

It's good for some, bad for a lot.

hrhrhrhrhr 5y ago

francisofascii 5y ago

Like many things in life, wealth inequality is good in moderation. Excessive wealth inequality is very bad, especially if it is due to unfair/rigged situations.

lbriner 5y ago

I assume you are implying that wealth inequality is a motivator that makes people work harder and aim higher. As with everything else in the universe, it works for some, it doesn't work for others and there are plenty who have almost literally no opportunities for whatever reason. In western nations we think that most people have basically the same opportunities but if you are from a low-income family, you are likely to have more issues with your family, potentially more emotional and financial dependents. If you have been knocked back too many times, you can lose confidence and not have anyone to encourage you. I guess in moderation, wage differences can motivate but at the point someone drops too low, they easily get caught in a cycle and then it becomes societies problem.

goodlinks 5y ago

if there was a lottery defined 99% of your life outcomes at birth would that be a bad thing? if it was possible for an accumulation of wealth within one group to essentially divide humanity in different groups that could never be changed despite skill level compitance or morals of the individuals in each group would that be bad? so someone whose great great granddaddy did something now has power for no reason. and their line of decendands wont be able to spend money as fast as they accumulate it - without even understanding how or why. wealth accumulation and private serveices (like education and healthcare) kind of make this an inevitability imho. AFAIK its not one person being paid more than another thats the issue.. its those that are paid because they were born with money and add nothing to society that i think bothers people. EDIT: a good book -The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists- for considering capitlism and the accumulation of wealth (also shock how relevant it is still 120 years later): https://freeclassicebooks.com/Robert%20Tressell/The%20Ragged%20Trousered%20Philanthropists.pdf https://freeclassicebooks.com/Robert%20Tressell/The%20Ragged...

justinmchase 5y ago
The level of competition is such that you have to complete across multiple lifetimes. You happen to be in a large bucket with a lot of competition you have to be top 1% in that case to even go up to the next level, which includes successfully having children and putting them on a good path to be top 1% as well. Take risks and succeed. The game is incredibly competitive and challenging and just understanding that is difficult.
- lexapro 5y ago
  It's an impossible feat if the competition has a 10 generations head start and is not playing by any rules.
simonh 5y ago
>AFAIK its not one person being paid more than another thats the issue.. its those that are paid because they were born with money and add nothing to society that i think bothers people. Sure, but how many wealthy people inherited their wealth and contribute nothing? It's actually a tiny fraction. It is quite common for people from better off backgrounds to be more successful, but arguably that's result of the previous generation investing in their kids and benefiting society as a result. Most doctors come from above average wealth families for example, but we want good doctors, right? The solution to that problem is better public education, not taxing the rich into the ground. I can't imagine anyone here thinks idle trust fund babies are a wonderful benefit to society, there's a good argument for steep inheritance taxes, but equally it's not actually a significant problem in our economy. It's just a hot button topic that upsets people, but it's really a distraction.
- goodlinks 5y ago
  Sure, sorry, they question was wide open so i gave the most generic and introductory of answers.. I trust fund babies are the extreme on the spectrum but any time your parents wealth is the biggest factor in whether or not you are a success the system is broken. imho i see many people who had support or investment from their parents doing very well when they are average or below average abilty. Education is ulimately the absolute most important thing.. a nation (or humanity as a whole) has a limited number of assest: land, infrastructure and people. the people being the most dynamic with the largest value multipliers possible. IMHO its a no brainer that you want to invest in people via education as a top priority as it will in turn multiply up all other investment (and anything that means money has a bigger sway than ability i think is a bit broken). To be clear i am not looking for the systems to be perfect, thats silly.. but i do prefer for example the idea of private education being illegal to ensure that grades actually mean something (not just how much money was spent on you). Also as a side note i belive that people who think they are worth many times more than others within their oragnisation dont understand how their value is derived and where it came from.. so while i dont seek for all salaries to be equal, i do think within an org they should all be within a certain range (e.g. highest paid no more than 5 or 10 times lowest paid). I have made / saved millions of dollars with a few hours work - but it was the existance of the org, the customers and the history that gave me the chance to do such good work more than it was my skill. people who can deliver solutions are actually more common than you think - good requirements and problems ripe for solving are thin on the ground.

holbrad 5y ago

A common argument is that relative levels of wealth don't matter too much. Does it really matter if there is some Billionaire's if the average person is doing well for themselves ? It's the average persons absolute amount of wealth going up that matters. I think the real question is: Is an uneven distribution necessary to drive absolute levels of wealth up more quickly ? What level of wealth inequality produces the most growth ?

Miner49er 5y ago

If left unchecked, it'll keep increasing until the people are forced to starve or "eat the rich".

golergka 5y ago
No — that relies on the assumption that we're playing a zero sum game, which we're not. There's nothing stopping wealth inequality from raising at the same time as living standards for the world's poorest do. In fact, it's exactly what's happening right now.
- pwinnski 5y ago
  There may be nothing stopping wealth inequality from rising alongside living standards for the poorest--but that is not what is happening right now. That trend ended in the US during the 1980s, and it is no longer true that "the rich are getting richer while the poor are also getting richer." On a global scale, it may be possible to show that the world's poorest are improving. I hope so! But when people talk about income inequality, they're generally referring to national economies, where living standards for the poorest have been declining as the number of billionaires skyrockets.
  - golergka 5y ago
    I wasn't talking about US, and that's exactly the point: global poorest are rapidly improving. And the only reason why a national economy like US is seeing income inequality is exactly because in reality, it's not a "national economy". It's part of the global economy, and in particular it's the part where the richest people from all around the globe end up.

bfors 5y ago

The way I see it, it's not about the wealth itself, but the disproportionate influence in politics that it can yield. The wider the divide gets, the less democratic the country gets. Hypothetically.

Miner49er 5y ago

It's inefficient. If capital becomes too concentrated, it won't be used as effectively if distributed more. There's probably a balance, but under capitalism wealth inequality tends to increase, if left unchecked.

stonemetal12 5y ago

Wealth inequality is to complex a topic for a good\bad flag. On the one hand it is good because it shows there is a real reward for delivering something people want or need. On the other hand it can be bad when people end up homeless and starving not because the resources don't exist but because they are being horded by the wealthy.

bernawil 5y ago

Commerce, capitalism, etc. nothing works under extreme wealth inequality, prices just don't matter then. When someone has too much wealth compared to the others, it doens't even make sense to trade when the rest can only sway your wealth so little. So when arguing about inequality, we're actually arguing just how much inequality exactly the system can work with.

gremlinsinc 5y ago

Wouldn't matter one iota, if there was a guarantee on housing, food, clothing, education, and medicine. Until that becomes part of the social contract - wealth inequality for some is a prison or death sentence or the means by which one is enslaved by their wages.