Are you even certain we can really say that wealth inequality exists at all, except as a temporary step? In the US, most indivudals eventually reach the middle class even if they don’t start there, and then exit it later in life, as far as income is concerned.
Secondly, I’m not at all sure you can demonstrate wealth inquality has actually increased. The heady days of Reconstruction and the gilded age were surely the height. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt - they had fortunes much vaster than any modern tycoon I know of, Gates included. Secondly, those big fortunes tend to either dissipate or get invested back again into the economy over time - thus benefiting the rest of us more or less like we would want anyway. While the indivudal may get use of wealth, nobody can hold onto his wealth without giving other people the use of it.
See the example of Colombia where you have huge gaps in wealth and you have a extremely wealthy class that lives behind huge layers of security while the rest of the country wallows in poverty. They travel to Miami on the weekend to spend their wealth and it obviously isn’t trickling down to the masses. So its not a “no brainer” that wealth will “help” others.
Naturally the wealthy will spend their money... but their financial heftiness is what also might prevent contenders from defying their dominance on certain markets. Upstart companies would be bought out or outspent. This might create a rigid caste that will never be "poor" again. Social mobility and competition all but gone.
Well if your choice is making $283 a month to do nothing vs not much more for a job, some people will choose to do nothing. That is what a disincentive is. Safety nets are supposed to keep you from starving on the street, not provide luxury.
No, but a lot of people are poor because they have made very bad choices with their lives. Others just don’t have the skills they need to succeed in life.
It’s easy to say that when it’s someone elses wealth.
Yes God forbid Nike earns a profit.
Yes, Asia countries and India are starting to form a middle class which they never had before. And they are developing a taste for the same products our middle class enjoys.
I’m also having trouble reconciling the hypocricy of your statement that “occidental” individuals should give up their “right to get rich” but not when it’s “occidental” jobs transfering to Asian countries. I guess wealth distribution is ok as long as it’s being distributed from people wealthier than you.
Interesting idea of “luxury” you have their. Can’t say I see how $283 a month provides for much in the way of luxuries in the U.S. Perhaps you could enlighten us?
The logic behind wealth inequality is simple. Capitalism creates winners and losers in the economic playing field. I’m cool with that. The winners use the capital they have to retain their advantage in the marketplace. I’m cool with that, too. But the winners, especially the very welathy, also game the system so that they don’t have to pay taxes on their wealth (see the book “Perfectly Legal” for an expose so that the tax burden gets unequalized as much as possible, and so that the barriers to entry into the marketplace are as high as possible for competitors.
I am not cool with that. Ultimately, the effect that all the gaming effected by the wealthy is to strangle the middle class and lead to Third World conditions of a wealthy upper class and a vast poor class (see: Columbia). There is considerable evidence already cited in this thread that things are trending that way in America.
I would say that’s a problem, unless Columbia is your idea of an ideal future for America.