[pitaj]

My hot take is that wealth inequality is the least bad problem we could have, if it is even a problem at all.

What people are actually experiencing is not wealth inequality, but cost disease. Vital things (housing, healthcare, education) are more expensive - and that's mostly the fault of state action.

[BobbyJo]

Two things:

1) You have to get it out of your head that it is enough when everyone has X standard of living. It isn't. It's enough when less than a critical threshold of the population is dissatisfied, and that dissatisfaction can come no matter what the median/lowest standard of living is. This is just how societies work, uniformly.

2) Money is a ledger supported by a social contract. Spending wealth in ways that erode the social contract is bad. I think we can all agree 500M dollar yachts, empty luxury apartment buildings, and buying up shorelines in populated areas are all bad looks, and therefore, erode the social contract. The wealthy really need to step in and police each other socially here, if they want to continue being wealthy.

[suttontom]

How do you run a society based on who is dissatisfied? It seems reasonable to say that, even though there's a massive wealth gap, if the poorest are healthier, wealthier, and generally better off than they were a generation ago (that might not be true though with this current generation, who it seems may die earlier than their parents did), then changing laws because those people are "dissatisfied" seems kind of arbitrary, because dissatisfaction is kind of the human condition.

[BobbyJo]

> How do you run a society based on who is dissatisfied?

We already do. Most of what governments do is reactionary to dissatisfaction.

> then changing laws because those people are "dissatisfied" seems kind of arbitrary

It's the opposite of arbitrary. Governments generally rule via power invested in them by the populace. Doing things that alleviate dissatisfaction is a survival tactic.

> dissatisfaction is kind of the human condition.

This is why building a rational and cooperative society is important, because they are the cure for misplaced dissatisfaction. That being said, historically, governments aren't stable, and that is, in large part, due to some of your points.

[BobaFloutist]

The problem is that wealth can be used to purchase dissatisfaction, so that becomes yet another lever for the destructive rich.

[gazebo2]

But that state action is the direct result of wealth's influence over the state and how it operates

[inglor_cz]

Two of the three (housing and education) don't seem to be caused by that.

Neither restrictive zoning, nor the administrative bloat in academia that caused tuition to skyrocket, were lobbied into existence by people like Bezos and Musk. They are result of tireless lobbying of relatively unimportant people seeking their own little rent.

[FireBeyond]

> nor the administrative bloat in academia that caused tuition to skyrocket

While, let's be clear, administrative bloat in academia is a very real issue, pointing to that as the true root issue is far more nebulous. Student loans being made non-dischargeable by bankruptcy meant that universities could afford to raise tuitions because lenders would be happy/ier to fund those loans because they will get their pound of flesh, even if it takes decades longer than designed.

[nullocator]

Aren't most of the housing issues in this country NIMBYism and zoning? NIMBYism lead by vocal, wealthy property owners? Zoning controlled by governments lead and captured by wealthy and corporate interests?

[BrenBarn]

Many of the NIMBY property owners are not nearly wealthy enough to be affected by most wealth tax proposals (e.g., the "few tens of millions" suggested in the article).

[JuniperMesos]

Many NIMBYs are basically ordinary middle-class people who are old enough that they were able to buy the house they live in decades ago before the price of properties in their area got bid up; so most of their wealth is locked up in the same house they are currently living in.

Taxing the extremely wealthy basically does nothing to decrease the property values of this class of people en masse, and decreasing their property values en masse is precisely what it would mean to make housing more affordable for more people.

[inglor_cz]

I don't live in the US, but NIMBYism is rampant here as well and all the practical instances I have witnessed were initiated and carried by dyspeptic pensioners with sincere hatred towards any change.

"But CHILDREN will SCREAM here!" shouted one such lady at me when I dared express my opposition against her petition, which demanded a stop to a "megalomaniac" plan to build approximately fifteen apartments half a kilometer away.

"You were a child once, too," I said.

"Sure, but I was A GOOD BEHAVED ONE, NOT LIKE TODAY'S BRATS!" at that time, she was positively screaming as well.

M'kay.

The situation in the US may be different, but the few YIMBY blogs and articles I have read mostly described their efforts as an uphill battle against progressive politicians who were certain that development leads to gentrification and gentrification is bad. Given that the YIMBY movement originated in California, this may just be an aftereffect of Californian politics. But in general, it is blue cities and regions that are known for very restrictive zoning policies.

[goatlover]

Politically wealth inequality is a problem as the wealthy have more means available to them to influence votes, candidates and appointments. So you have a society that's partly democratic but with a lot of unequal influence at the top.

[rconti]

I'm not well-versed in "cost disease", but yes, standards go up. Cars have to have airbags and backup cameras and infernal electronic nannies. So an (alleged) increase in safety has been mandated, and the costs are obligatory. IOW, your risk of dying in a car goes down, but it doesn't come for free.

Medical care is getting better, insurance is required to pay for more and more things, but that drives up insurance costs.

In my county, fire sprinklers are required in all new houses.

Costs go up, but at least, in theory, you're getting something in return.

You're welcome to blame the state. Without those actions, things would be somewhat more affordable. But it seems pretty clear from the data on inequality that inequality is a much bigger factor in bidding up living costs than the fact that I need to install sprinklers in my house, even if sprinklers are a very large cost relative to my income.

[UncleMeat]

More than one million people die of TB annually, a disease that has an inexpensive treatment.

That’s not cost disease. That is wealth inequality killing people.

[lovich]

> if it is even a problem at all.

One of the pillars of capitalism is that the entire economy is more efficient when decision making power is dispersed as close as possible to the people making economic decisions aka what they buy.

When we have ended up in a situation where a handful of people are making all the economic decisions because they have all the money, there is no functional difference between that situation and a command economy.

If you’re a believer in capitalism as a tool to eliminate scarcity you should view the existence of billionaires(adjust for inflation) over the longer term as policy failures that are eroding capitalisms ability to create more and more.