[frgtpsswrdlame]

>Really?

Yes

>Do you honestly believe it's more relevant than rent-seeking behaviour, political corruption, monopolistic practices, environmental pillage, tax dodging and evasion?

Firm inequality is an expression of many of these factors. Specifically political corruption, rent-seeking behavior, monopolistic practices and tax issues. Companies that can engage in these activities first in a competitive market can corrupt the market, make themselves more profitable and make their firm the one that pays much more than their competitors.

Overall I sometimes think the debate over inequality has been a little poisoned by the 99% - 1% rhetoric. Yes the CEO class makes ridiculous amounts more than their workers and I think this is wrong but there are large gulfs between the 95% and the 5%, the 90% and the 10%, all the way down. Focusing specifically on the wealth of C-level executives ignores a lot of other ways inequality manifests itself. Focusing on firm level inequality helps lower inequality in these other divides.

[Sone7]

>Firm inequality is an expression of many of these factors.

Exactly. It's not the cause, like this article is claiming.

Considering that most people consistently grossly under-estimate the divide between the wealth 'classes', I'd say that it's a bit premature to say the debate has been poisoned. Most people think it's not nearly as bad as it is, despite the work of many people, like Wilkinson. His findings should have been on the fucking news every day until people got it, not a Ted Talk.

The uber-wealthy control the vast majority of media, politics, and distribution of resources. The signs that they're working in the interest of equality or the common good are sparse, to say the least. Focusing on inter-firm inequality may in a roundabout way touch on those issues, but as you say yourself, it's not the cause.