|
|
|
|
|
by cobaltblue
3811 days ago
|
|
What is this total inequality you talk about? It seems like you're picking the inequality of 0 and infinity. But we live in a finite world, this total inequality is impossible. Furthermore, whether we introduce an infinite inequality or a finite inequality, there's no reason the lower bound should be at 0 (where people starve and die). Suppose we have a society whose inequality range generally falls within 1 and 1,000,000. 1 is a sustenance standard of living, any unfortunate event could totally wipe you out, but it's pretty much maintainable with little effort provided that unfortunate event doesn't happen. Somewhere around 3 being the poverty line and somewhere around 8 being a decent standard of living so long as you're working to maintain it, and somewhere around 50-100 is enough for most people to effectively have that same decent standard of living as 8 but without having to maintain it so hard e.g. through a job. What's wrong with this lower bound increasing by 1 every year (with its associated low level of upkeep remaining the same) while the upper bound increases by 2 every year? The inequality is growing with each year, but in 2 years there is no one below the poverty line, and in 7 years everyone has a decent standard of living but they don't really have to put in effort for it. Why is inequality the issue here? |
|