4 ms·

The original article doesn't claim income equality is the only factor in wellbeing. A less equal society that attracts more productive people could easily do b

The original article doesn't claim income equality is the only factor in wellbeing. A less equal society that attracts more productive people could easily do better than more equal societies which lose said people. That assumes, amongst other things, that productive people will flock to where they are best paid regardless of other factors, and that more unequal societies will pay them best, and that the impact of such migrations is an overriding factor in the overall productivity of a nation. For you that's probably common sense, in my experience it's utter BS. That's why studies like the OP are necessary.

anamax 17y ago
Actually, it just assumed some difference along those lines. > more unequal societies will pay them best Nope. I just assumed that more unequal societies that do pay them better would have a better chance of attracting them. All other factors are never the same, but it seems absurd to think that productive people place no weight on being paid better. After all, non-productive people place weight on being paid better. > That's why studies like the OP are necessary. I don't see how such studies can find anything non-trivial. Note that there are specialization and globalization effects. For example, suppose that country A attracts the inventors and is unequal and country B is equal and attracts the drones. (This isn't far-fetched - there's little benefit to being a "tall-poppy" in B and being a drone in A really sucks.) If country B builds the stuff that country A invents, both benefit and have a better standard of living than either by itself. Suppose further that concentrating inventors has some effect on their productivity. Note that A could easily end up worse off than B, despite being crucial to B's success.