3 ms·

I don't see why income inequality is inherently "evil". Yes, too much can be a problem, although I'd be more concerned with the overall standard of living than

I don't see why income inequality is inherently "evil". Yes, too much can be a problem, although I'd be more concerned with the overall standard of living than whether billionaires exist. Is it evil that some artists or athletes become extremely popular? Is it evil that someone's business becomes extremely successful? Do either of those things lower the standard of living for other people? I tend to think they grow the economic pie and provide goods and services which didn't exist to the same extent before. This isn't to say there are no problems with income inequality, or that there shouldn't be proper safety nets or taxation, just that income inequality doesn't seem to be an evil in my judgement. Some people are just going to end up more successful than others for whatever reasons, and as long as it's done within the law, I don't see the inherent problem with it. I do see a big problem with trying to make economic outcomes equal, and I don't think it works.

mola 5y ago
Income inequality isn't evil, optimizing for it is. Creating a system where wealth and thus power and freedom is concentrated in a shrinking percentage of the populos is wrong and exploitative.
- dgb23 5y ago
  It's also outright stupid, inefficient and ineffective. So many great achievements in history have been lost, shattered or set back because of hierarchical and combative power relations.
vsareto 5y ago
The current nature of what is unequal is also a problem. If we had enough food/housing/water/necessities for everyone that were created and delivered autonomously, and the only inequality were social criteria (reputation, jobs, accomplishments), it would seem more tolerable, or not as high of a priority. The lower bound of inequality means you go hungry/thirsty or become homeless. If the lower bound meant you just lost a cool opportunity (but could go chill until the next one), then I think most of us would be okay with that.

mola 5y ago

Income inequality isn't evil, optimizing for it is. Creating a system where wealth and thus power and freedom is concentrated in a shrinking percentage of the populos is wrong and exploitative.

dgb23 5y ago
It's also outright stupid, inefficient and ineffective. So many great achievements in history have been lost, shattered or set back because of hierarchical and combative power relations.

vsareto 5y ago

The current nature of what is unequal is also a problem. If we had enough food/housing/water/necessities for everyone that were created and delivered autonomously, and the only inequality were social criteria (reputation, jobs, accomplishments), it would seem more tolerable, or not as high of a priority. The lower bound of inequality means you go hungry/thirsty or become homeless. If the lower bound meant you just lost a cool opportunity (but could go chill until the next one), then I think most of us would be okay with that.