I am not sure how that could be prevented without reducing inequality. And I don't see how to raise the income of lower educated people in a world which is ever more automated.
Progressive taxation on wealth (not income). Then, mess with the curve of progressiveness.
Generating income becomes the unbridled thing. Sitting on mountains of wealth becomes futile. No dynasties. What have you done for me lately? You can live a king's life by generating obscene earned income, but your kids will only be assured easy street. Their kids only assured middle class. This gives grandpa and grandma a reason to improve the lot of the middle and lower classes.
If you let the lower groups fall too far into despondence, they will eventually come for your heads. You can build prisons to a point. You can create mental prisons to an extent. You can pacify the masses for a long while. Eventually, there's nothing left in the tank. Nothing to lose. Then, you lose stability and your choices are few.
The more your society reflects fiefdoms of the middle ages, the more you'll start seeing royalty thrown from windows and put on stakes.
We have the very wealthy (royalty). We have their military class ready to step in: Gun-coveting believers in the system that amazingly keeps increasing inequality. Then we have a growing base of servants who can't own land or tools of production (education). This looks increasingly familiar.
> If you let the lower groups fall too far into despondence, they will eventually come for your heads. You can build prisons to a point. You can create mental prisons to an extent. You can pacify the masses for a long while. Eventually, there's nothing left in the tank. Nothing to lose. Then, you lose stability and your choices are few.
I don't think that's true. People will resort to violence and risk their lives when they're hungry and cold, not because the elite are driving Lamborghinis and they have to make do with Fords. As long as the lower classes have some minimum standard of living, greater and greater wealth inequality is sustainable.
I was unclear. I agree with this and was trying to say essentially this. Rich and powerful can try to contain those at the bottom through various means, but eventually those means won't be able to contain them.
Very interesting idea, as long as there's some decent untaxed wealth level proportional to your average income level, like 3..5 years of income, in order to afford good sabbaticals.
The problem is in the potential for corruption, since your official income number will mean so much more than now.
A lot of the richer cities have major restrictions on development that drive rents very high [1]. The cities that are attracting more low-income people (e.g., the Texas cities) have much more development-friendly policies that keep the rent lower despite massive immigration.
Generating income becomes the unbridled thing. Sitting on mountains of wealth becomes futile. No dynasties. What have you done for me lately? You can live a king's life by generating obscene earned income, but your kids will only be assured easy street. Their kids only assured middle class. This gives grandpa and grandma a reason to improve the lot of the middle and lower classes.
If you let the lower groups fall too far into despondence, they will eventually come for your heads. You can build prisons to a point. You can create mental prisons to an extent. You can pacify the masses for a long while. Eventually, there's nothing left in the tank. Nothing to lose. Then, you lose stability and your choices are few.
The more your society reflects fiefdoms of the middle ages, the more you'll start seeing royalty thrown from windows and put on stakes.
We have the very wealthy (royalty). We have their military class ready to step in: Gun-coveting believers in the system that amazingly keeps increasing inequality. Then we have a growing base of servants who can't own land or tools of production (education). This looks increasingly familiar.
Or maybe I just have some Dystopia Myopia.