[statstutor]

> That's what the video is arguing, but it won't be the case unless we've fully satisfied all of our desires. If we haven't, there are, by definition, still things to do.

If wealth continues to become increasingly centralised, the wealthy might be able to have all their desires fully satisfied, while the poor won't have enough power to demand that - which potentially creates a vicious cycle.

Then the existence of sufficient jobs is fraught.

[scatters]

Continues? The world is more equal than it ever has been, at least since the invention of agriculture.

[statstutor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_eq...

World Gini coefficient for wealth has increased from 0.804 to 0.904 between 2008 and 2018, where 1 means that a single person holds all the wealth.

[scatters]

Wealth inequality is immaterial; what matters is (lifetime) consumption inequality. Income inequality is an imperfect substitute measure.

[statstutor]

Labour accounts for about half of world income, from memory, with capital accounting for the other half of world income. If wealth centralises, then so does income.

Besides, you replied to try and refute a comment which was quite unambiguously about wealth inequality. It's possible to occasionally admit you were wrong, rather than doubling down when you are.

[thyrsus]

In western economies, Piketty showed that equality peaked approximately in the 1950's, and has been dropping since. (Almost) no one recommends we have another world war to decrease the assets owned by the rich, but Piketty, like the original article, also recommends a wealth tax (this article includes the significant refinement that the tax be on corporations and not individuals; Piketty does not go into details for his wealth tax proposal).

If you disagree with these points, please site evidence.

[scatters]

Western economies? What about the rest of the world?

Citation: World Bank. "Poverty and Prosperity 2016 / Taking on Inequality"[1].

1. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2...

[OrbitRock]

That’s largely an effect of bringing more regions of the world into the industrialized paradigm, whereas what the other commenter said describes what happens to people in industrialized countries.

[webmaven]

> Continues? The world is more equal than it ever has been, at least since the invention of agriculture.

Sure, globally. But that's as a result of a rising floor beneath extreme poverty, ie. the percentage of people subsisting on less than $1.90 per day has been dropping.

Sure, that's only a part of the story, and a growing global middle class is nothing to sneeze at, but the reduction in poverty is projected to slow considerably over the next decade, with half a billion remaining in extreme poverty in 2030, 87% of whom will be concentrated in sub-saharan Africa.

Meanwhile, social mobility up and out of the middle class is also slowing considerably in the various advanced economies, as is downward mobility from the upper class into the middle class, while downward mobility from middle to working class is growing.

I don't mean to diminish the progress that has been made so far, but it is starting to look likely that these successes are stagnating.