But again, inequality, and by extension all of these things (except the last one) are symptoms of any system in which everyone isn't allotted the same exact thing. And those at the top don't necessarily have to have acquired their wealth by keeping others from moving up the socioeconomic ladder.
Correct. Those at the top don't have to gain wealth at the expense of those at the bottom, in fact as you point out later and as is pointed out by Picketty doing so actually hurts the top end in the long run as it is literally cutting the legs out form under the system.
Agreed that too much of a gap is bad, but it's not just bad for those at the bottom. Too much of a gap = less economic activity = less money for the rich, as well as increased resentment thrown their way.
agree 1000x
Those things explain why companies operate/think quarter to quarter but don't necessarily explain or prove that the rich are rich at the poor's expense.
The widening of the inequality gap is as you stated a result of the system. If the economy at 100% represents income in america where there can only ever be 100% then by definition if at one point in time 1% had 60% while the 99% had 40% and that has since then changed to 1% having 80% and the 99% having 20% it's pretty clear to see where the money went. Now whether through outright malicious intent or simply hap stance the rich have squeezed the bottom for their money. Usually you see it in places like walmart where they have employees who shop at their own stores. We can assume walmart pays their employees LESS than the revenue walmart brings in off of the work of those employees (otherwise they would not be profitable). Again as those employees also shop at walmart they are spending money they just earned to pay for THEMSELVES. Essentially walmart is double dipping into the profit of their employees via top and bottom line activity...(e.g. they make money in revenue from their employees and also make money off of the labor expenses via production from employees)....
Now there's nothing inherently wrong with this at least not at face value. The issue I believe is that literally "Walmart" is slow bleeding the employees of their wealth. (i say walmart but mean "the rich). You see it in things like bank fees (which is the bank charging you for you allowing them to use your money
)
Difficulties in executing a plan don't invalidate the plan being the way forward. Pretty much any solution to a tough problem will be difficult.
that I understand. My point was that in order to address the difficulties you typically have to address education first. IN other words in order to fix education you have to fix XYZ and in order to fix XYZ you have to fix education... you sorta have to fix it all.
Excessive inequality is a symptom of the real issue, not the metric we should be focusing on. However it's a nice, simple, populist-enraging metric that enables people to rationalize jealousy. I'm so tired of talking about income inequality. It's a problem but not THE problem.
that's the thing though I don't think there is a "THE PROBLEM" there are a bunch of little problems that make a giant shyt stew. You can take the potatoes out of a stew and it's still a stew, you can take the meat out and it still a stew, you take all the ingredients out and you don't have a stew anymore (I haven't had lunch yet sorry...). YES the wealth gap is a symptom, but just like coughing is a symptom it can also cause additional complications and become it's own thing...which it has. And in terms of metrics and what to look out for, historically, at least based on the few studies (2 studies really) i've seen it's a pretty big key indicator in terms of political and social disaster/revolution. When that gap hits a certain point heads start rolling.
