[ryanbrunner]

It all depends on what you want to optimize for. But for me, and I suspect a lot of people, the happiness of society seems like a decent starting point (let's assume for the moment that most Americans / 1st world citizens are at the point where base survival is not in question)

The current rate of inequality is massively inefficient if you're trying to optimize happiness. The bottom 2 quintiles of Americans control so little wealth that keeping food on the table is their primary concern. Meanwhile, an extremely small and shrinking proportion of the population control an outsized amount of wealth, to the point where it's not reasonably usable in an efficient way by those people.

It's like saying that the proper way to divide 100 loaves of bread between 100 people is to give 1 person 95 loaves and every other person a slice of bread. No one is starving, but you're making 1 person very happy at the expense of 99 others.

[bmmayer1]

The bread analogy doesn't make any sense. Inequality is a relative metric, not an absolute one. If I only need one loaf of bread to survive, who cares if my neighbor has 100 or 1000?

[ryanbrunner]

That depends on whether one loaf (my example was slice, which is maybe a bit more evocative) is the bare minimum to survive or enough to be fully satiated. At that level, it (and wealth inequality) can be viewed as an absolute metric. I absolutely care if my neighbour has 100 loaves if I'm emaciated and unable to think about anything but hunger, even if I'm eating enough to survive.

My argument is, for the bottom 40% of Americans, it is at that level. The fact that the top 20% holds a vastly disproportionate share of the wealth isn't bad because the 40% are losing a dick-measuring contest, it's bad because the lack of wealth of the 40% has a real effect on their happiness.

[bmmayer1]

If the true intention of 'inequality' arguments is to highlight the plight of the emaciated and hungry, then it certainly doesn't come across. I don't know where you're getting the 40% number, but 40% of Americans are not 'unable to think about anything but hunger.' 14.5% of Americans are below the poverty line (that's about the same % of people on SNAP). 5% of Americans are considered 'extremely food insecure.'

I understand how '85% of Americans are doing just fine' isn't great political rhetoric, but don't you think it's disingenuous to pretend that 'inequality' arguments which mostly highlight what % of wealth the wealthy have compared to everyone else is really about the poor, and not what it's really about, which is soaking the rich and middle class for higher taxes? I mean, after all, that's why phrases like 'the 1%' exist in the first place, to create some sort of camaraderie of outrage amongst the 'proletariat' to pursue a particular economic policy, right?

In any event, if people who truly cared about the poor advocated for solutions to poverty, instead of focusing on 'inequality', they might find their arguments fall on less deaf ears.

[antisthenes]

Solution to poverty is a massive retroactive redistribution of wealth and far more progressive taxes.

[bmmayer1]

Do you have any evidence that that will work? Can you point to a situation in history when a 'massive retroactive redistribution of wealth' has solved poverty?

[frgtpsswrdlame]

People have always and will always care about how much their neighbor has.

[bmmayer1]

True, but 'do not covet thy neighbor's goods' is also one of the oldest traditions we have. There's a reason such moral imperatives have developed in our culture; they are more often than not destructive.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

I think the problem here is that people with a single loaf are looking around and seeing some guy with 1000 loaves of bread on the news saying that the fact that he has to pay 10 loaves to the government is immoral and that poor people would be fine with half a loaf.

Tax cuts and the cuts in government programs that come with them directly affect those with the least. Telling people not to covet and not actually addressing inequality is how you get things like the French Revolution.

[bmmayer1]

You won't find an argument with me that the tax system should be fairer, or at least have fewer loopholes (fair is obviously a matter of opinion). But note that we have moved the goalposts here from a discussion about economic opportunity/inequality/what have you to a discussion about government policy and taxes...so I'm unclear if the original point is still being addressed.