[dignick]

> If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic.

You are looking at this from a world where that isn’t the case. Money would be worth less in that scenario, and that 10% owns 99% of the wealth, which is still going to cause problems.

[faeyanpiraat]

Yes but OP meant the 90% of people would get access to opportunities like the millionaires today.

So even if inequality would be wild, nobody would worry about “issues of the poor”, like food or healthcare bills.

[dignick]

In this fictitious world I'm sure there would be other problems, perhaps some we can't foresee and might look like privilege to us today. We don't complain about "issues of the poor" from the past such as child labour (with some exceptions) today. Significant inequality will cause problems regardless of the baseline standard of living.

[gmadsen]

that hypothetical can't exist though, so what is the point in entertaining it. The world have finite resources, money (no matter the inflation) is a way to ration this to people. Not every single person can have a mansion in SF.

[cloverich]

Not a mansion in SF, but a super computer in their pocket? Point being, only some resources are limited, but wealth in general is not.

[jjav]

A phone in your pocket is not wealth, hard to believe this example comes up so often in these discussions.

It's a gadget, a depreciating asset.

Actual wealth produces more wealth, which is why the very rich get richer even while they sleep. A gadget makes its owner a tiny bit poorer every day as it depreciates.

[cloverich]

The problem with defining wealth in that manner is, you can argue a person has literally every material possession they could ever want, from entertainment to knowledge to health and nutrition, and have no desire or use for further "wealth" and yet sitll be considered poor. Yet, it is easy to imagine several of these depreciating assets being more valuable to a person than any imaginable level of wealth, were they unable to use the wealth to obtain those assets.

> Actual wealth produces more wealth

I used my computer to learn to program getting a higher salary than I"ve ever held previously. It produced quite a bit of wealth for me that would have been unatainable without it. Does that impact your stance in any manner?

[jjav]

> and yet sitll be considered poor.

Well, "poor", no. But if someone who inherited vast wealth used it all up on depreciating assets (even if it is superyachts instead of phones) then yes, they'll eventually end up with no wealth.

Of course, for sufficiently large amounts of wealth, it is effectively impossible to use it all up so it may take many generations. Jeff Bezos kids will never be able to be poor no matter what.

> Does that impact your stance in any manner?

No. The computer (depreciating asset) didn't produce any wealth. Your hard work and learning, while using it as a tool, is what produced wealth. The computer itself depreciated to zero.

[gmadsen]

the things that matter are. Land, housing, access to others labor. Natural resources.

[cloverich]

So were you to choose between ever having a computer / smart phone or ever having a house, it would be the house? Beacuse personally I would much rather own a computer, information access, my guitar, several other things I can think of, before trading any for a home or land -- I'd be happy to rent. "Things that matter" beyond a roof of any kind over your head, safety, and basic nutrition I am sure varies widely depending on the person. What good are riches if you can't purchase anything you want?

[nybble41]

> … before trading any for a home or land -- I'd be happy to rent.

You're still trading for a home and land even if you rent. It's just a more temporary arrangement.

[gmadsen]

rent scales with land(finite resource) price. If everyone in the country made a million dollars, rent prices would not be where they are.