[nerdponx]

There's also the weird and uncomfortable truth that substantial wealth accumulated all in one place is what keeps a significant amount of private business, arts, and craftsmen in business.

Who really needs a beautifully-curved hand-carved wood staircase? Nobody, but rich guys want them occasionally, so that's keeping a whole company and a couple of master craftsmen in business.

You could argue that this is just a misallocation of resources and that without said rich guys the same economic productivity would move elsewhere instead. But I'm not convinced that's equivalent, it's "mythical man-month" reasoning. $1 in 100 people's pockets is not the same as $100 in one pocket.

I'm not at all arguing that the money is deserved or that we shouldn't consider wealth redistribution policy. As you said, it comes back down to quality of life. When we talk about wealth inequality, it's important to realize that we're not trying to prevent people from making money and spending it on things other than groceries and gas, we're trying to prevent people from being materially poor, and mess with everything else as little as possible.

[mitthrowaway2]

It's sort of true. Give money to the masses, and there will be more demand for mass-produced products. When money is concentrated in the hands of a few elite, they'll commission some exceptional things.

But on the other hand, the same masterwork staircases could be put towards public buildings, like grand libraries, museums, and train stations. Then everyone can enjoy those splendid things and the master craftsmen still stay in business, without their works needing to be confined to the mansions of the wealthy.

But these days we tend to disapprove of public works being anything beyond the bare minimum of utilitarian functionality. Anything else is seen as a wasteful extravagance.