The real problem might just as well be obesity, teenage births, imprisonment, educational performance or drug use.
If inequality is just one of the symptoms and not the real devil, then eradicating inequality would probably be rather destructive. Just like eradicating drug use seems to be destructive, because the underlying cause is mental problems.
Inequality is a problem if inequality is restraining the total growth of society or limiting resources/services/goods that would potentially be available to you in a less unequal society.
Arguably the latter is a symptom of the former. So there are broadly 2 approaches to tackle the problem - reduce inequality, or use draconian measures to control the people who got the wrong end of the inequality stick.
Inequality is a problem because inequality is itself empirically shown to be a source of disutility, independent of those other concerns you raise.
It may also be a problem for those other reasons, but that's not necessary for it to be a problem.
(People often mistake output and consumption measures of typical economic statistics for direct measures of experienced utilities. While they are proxies for utility, they are imperfect proxies, and one of the ways we know they are flawed is that they do not account for the disutility that directly results from inequality.)
"The biggest problem with inequality is the floor." No it is not.
Inequality is a much bigger problem than just the people at the bottom. It is associated with a plethora of bad outcomes. This includes poor physical and mental health outcomes, happiness, and other core indicators of societal wellbeing.
The problem with inequality is the polarization, the haves and the have nots with no in between. That leads to a more brutal society where there is no ground for agreement.
Plenty. Inequality of power, inequality of influence, inequality of opportunities, inequality of access to education, housing, healthcare. All of that is wrong, and can be corrected.
Isn't he saying that the problem is that economic inequality is seen as the
cause, not the effect? I think that's in line with all of the points you brought
up.
I would argue that inequality is not a problem at all. It doesn't affect me that there are others with vastly more wealth than I have, since I have enough for myself and my family. Unless I'm simply envious, the inequality is not a problem for me.
Rather than inequality, the problem is really that the bottom end of the range is too low. There are too many people who are not able to find enough work to provide an adequate income. There's a litany of social and economic reasons for that, but that is the problem, not the inequality itself.
reply