[PKop]

Matters to you because you wouldn't be harmed by it?

All egalitarian, equality doctrines will end up here, why wouldn't they? What is the limiting principle?

This is why they should be rejected. Pretty funny to see the outrage when the equalizing starts moving down the spectrum. Why shouldn't that blue collar worker want you to be equalized to him, why should he care about your disgust?

[femiagbabiaka]

Matters because it is nonsensical. There are some cases, such as AI research contributing to automation that replaces workers from one industry with another, or perhaps more directly, Uber replacing taxi workers, where income can be envisioned to be taken from one set of workers pockets to another.

But in reality, that's not how this works. Each company is distinct and has its own funding models. And the vast majority of money taken out of all workers paychecks regardless of industry isn't extracted by other workers in unrelated industries, it's removed by the employers to line their own pockets.

[heavyset_go]

I think you're mistaken here, blue collar workers and white collar workers are in the same boat when it comes to the precarity of their means of providing for themselves and the relations they have with the entities that dole out those means.

Division is what I interpreted as what elicits disgust here, when workers of all stripes would be stronger if they instead were united.

The scraps that are thrown to blue and white collar workers alike pale in comparison to the wealth disparity of those who need to work as a whole versus who they must work for.

[esolyt]

It doesn't matter because it's tiny.

The inequality between a Google engineer and a Starbucks barista is tiny compared to the inequality between a Google engineer and Elon Musk.

The article only covers the former and not the latter and therefore acts as the kind of propaganda expected by WSJ. In the author's defense, they admit they're focusing on one narrow benchmark and ignoring capital gains and dividends in this article. The article still has value. But the fact remains that the article has the word inequality in its title and completely fails to cover inequality in its actual sense, the way we understand it in a political context.