3 ms·

> Why does wealth inequality matter? If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, Not in terms of the ratio between you, which

> Why does wealth inequality matter? If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, Not in terms of the ratio between you, which is the way we normally talk about wealth inequality : "he has X times more wealth than I do", or "she makes X times more than I do". Anyway, this is not how wealth inequality has grown at all. It has happened by most people's real income barely rising at all over 40-50 years, while the rich have seen theirs rise by huge factors (hundreds to many thousands in some cases).

ajmurmann 1y ago
That's not at all what I've seen in the US. The middle class has shrunk but that part of the overall population has moved to upper income. Meanwhile, real (aka inflation corrected) median household income has gone up: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N If what you care about is standing real wages why talk about inequality? I'm concerned that it just functions better as rage bait and leads to unproductive policies.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  1. it is well established that human pyschology makes relative income and wealth much more significant than absolute. And it doesn't matter which quintile you're in for that to be true. 2. real median household income stayed relatively flat between 1970 and 2012. Since then it has risen again in a significant way. 3. despite the gains in real median household income, the rise in the household income (and net worth) of various upper percentiles (20%, 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1% ... take your pick) has been very, very much larger. consequently, the "double my income, double Musk's income" line is not a description of what has happened. 4. the percentage of GDP that accrues to capital rather than to labor have gone steadily up since 1980.
- danaris 1y ago
  If that's what "you've seen", then you aren't looking in the right places. Look at the graphs of real wages vs productivity that start pre-1970. Yes, it's true that real wages have gone up some since that time, but they remain completely divorced from productivity in a way that's totally different from the time before Reagan. Meanwhile, the income/wealth of the highest earners has gone up astronomically during the same time. They are staggeringly wealthy because they have redirected the flow of money from us to them. This is a very clearly visible and uncontroversial fact. The controversy is simply over whether it is a good thing.

ajmurmann 1y ago

That's not at all what I've seen in the US. The middle class has shrunk but that part of the overall population has moved to upper income. Meanwhile, real (aka inflation corrected) median household income has gone up: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N If what you care about is standing real wages why talk about inequality? I'm concerned that it just functions better as rage bait and leads to unproductive policies.

PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
1. it is well established that human pyschology makes relative income and wealth much more significant than absolute. And it doesn't matter which quintile you're in for that to be true. 2. real median household income stayed relatively flat between 1970 and 2012. Since then it has risen again in a significant way. 3. despite the gains in real median household income, the rise in the household income (and net worth) of various upper percentiles (20%, 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1% ... take your pick) has been very, very much larger. consequently, the "double my income, double Musk's income" line is not a description of what has happened. 4. the percentage of GDP that accrues to capital rather than to labor have gone steadily up since 1980.
danaris 1y ago
If that's what "you've seen", then you aren't looking in the right places. Look at the graphs of real wages vs productivity that start pre-1970. Yes, it's true that real wages have gone up some since that time, but they remain completely divorced from productivity in a way that's totally different from the time before Reagan. Meanwhile, the income/wealth of the highest earners has gone up astronomically during the same time. They are staggeringly wealthy because they have redirected the flow of money from us to them. This is a very clearly visible and uncontroversial fact. The controversy is simply over whether it is a good thing.