[trevyn]

I view inequality as providing a visceral drive to improve my lot in life. I want the things that the billionaires have, so I'm going to try my darnedest to work smart and hard and get there.

If there were no billionaires to look up to, that's a signal that I can't really improve my life much, so why try hard?

[lyudmil]

It's perfectly okay to use inequality as a personal motivator like you do, but it doesn't follow that inequality is a good thing. What you may find gives you drive might crush others, who would otherwise lead a fulfilling life in which they grow into their innate talents and enrich the life of the people they interact with.

I personally strongly disagree that one wouldn't try to improve one's life unless forced to by difficult circumstances. I think we have sufficient evidence that humans are innately curious and creative, and find self-fulfillment in pursuing their curiosity, discovering new things, and otherwise "improving."

It's actually fascinating to me that you have the view of human nature that you do. I don't think this is the right thread to discuss this, but in general I'm very eager to explore that further.

[trevyn]

I agree that humans have an innate drive for self-improvement, and adding an economic motivator (and therefore inequality, by definition) helps focus and amplify that drive toward improvements that also efficiently increase quality of life for others. Because of the economic motivator, I want to build things that people are willing to exchange resources for -- if they're not willing to exchange resources, it's honestly hard to argue that the item was ultimately very valuable to them.

As long as there is value to humans in exchanging different types of resources, I fail to see how economic inequality is unavoidable. We can argue over the appropriate degree, but some level of inequality seems fundamental to the nature of our universe.