[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.