Thanks for the reply. Some thoughts: 1) I don’t know that the freeing up of the “high skill worker” turns out as rosy as you paint it. My observation (I don’t

Thanks for the reply. Some thoughts: 1) I don’t know that the freeing up of the “high skill worker” turns out as rosy as you paint it. My observation (I don’t have data on this, but it’s supported by driving through any medium-sized midwest city) is that technology leads to 10 low skill workers being replaced by 1 high skill worker operating machinery (or by offshore labor). People and entire cities are truly being left behind, not just experiencing a widening of a wage gap. What’s the solution here to people who aren’t economically viable anymore? I’m not sure. UBI maybe, but that’s a whole other can of worms. 2) I think there are ways of taxing wealth that aren’t very complex or onerous (eliminating the step up in basis for estates over a certain size would be one). They’re probably not running the business much anymore, especially since they’re not alive. If you still don’t like that, then taxing the huge loans billionaires take out and then pay for with stock that has grown faster than the interest rate on the loan (which aren’t technically income) as income would be huge. 3) Your last point about inequality being age-based is absolutely true (compound interest is amazing), but I think (and this is backed by the data) that our starting point (talking about income, here) as younger people is, even inflation adjusted, worse, and thus our compounding is starting from a much lower initial level. Assets we’d buy to hopefully compound are already so dang expensive that it’s hard to imagine them continuing to compound as they have. Further, I think it’s unlikely we will see the rates of growth we’ve seen over the last few decades for the next few. We’ve grown so fast, and true fundamentals (population decline, resource overusage, climate change) are going to make it hard to continue at this rate.