[DarkKomunalec]

That is a strawman - total equality (prison, grave) is not being advocated, merely reducing the current extreme inequality.

And inequality is a good measure because the benefit of an extra N dollars is greater, the less money one already has. So, all else being equal, smaller inequality leads to greater average quality of life.

Inequality is also a measure of for whose benefit a society is working - the benefit of the ones accruing the most wealth. So the more concentrated that wealth, the more the rest of society is being ignored in favour of the richest few.

A common counterargument is saying that as long as the wealth of the lower classes also rises, then why worry about inequality. But it has been stagnant for several decades in the US, the poor have to work long hours, all while more and more wealth flows to the top. So it becomes clear that merely improving the economy won't help, as the benefits are captured by those already rich.

[blowski]

I agree with you. Equality of wealth is symbolic.

When one person has 10 Ferraris in their garage while someone just a few miles away can't afford to feed their children, it's unfair and unsustainable. You don't need to advocate absolute equality to see how that situation could be improved.

[sambe]

It's not a strawman. This topic is now so fashionable as a news item (regardless of your view) that people will target any kind of inquality in western democracies as inherently wrong.

What counts as extreme? Has much really changed in the last few years since this became something discussed daily? Why do such articles ignore payments in kind and fail to address subtleties to do with the different measures (personal income, household etc).

I don't personally consider the existing situation extreme, and the fact that people underestimate it doesn't change my view.

[DarkKomunalec]

So because some people advocate total equality, it's not a strawman to respond to them, instead of to the article?

Do you always address only the arguments of the least reasonable people in some arbitrarily defined group?

[sambe]

The article doesn't set the standard based on any kind of cogent argument. It assumes the ideal is what people say it is based on instinct, and the result is not 100% extreme, but it is pretty extreme. This is even more true if you consider the other questions I raised. The researcher compares this to living on a kibbutz, although the article then assumes this is a good thing.

There are many other examples of people's instincts being off by surprising amounts, including in ways that do not affect them positively.

That's what I intended to address. Don't really see the need to get personal and extrapolate hypocritically.