[happyscrappy]

PG addressed this earlier in the quote but I left it out because it was already pretty long.

"If you want to reduce economic inequality instead of just improving the overall standard of living, it's not enough just to raise up the poor. What if one of your newly minted engineers gets ambitious and goes on to become another Bill Gates? Economic inequality will be as bad as ever."

So what is the more important goal to raise the overall standard of living or reduce economic inequality?

[btown]

I should have been more clear about this. I read the full article, and if I though that "But the overall standard of living will be raised unilaterally for all individuals" was a sufficient answer to my issues with PG's piece, I wouldn't have written a reply!

I think there's tremendous value in preventing our society from dividing into two spheres so far away from each other that merit-based mobility is practically nonexistent - a world of "haves" and "have-nots." Because if you do split society that way, then even if the "have-nots" are arguably at a higher standard of living than today's working class, they're still not in a place where they can contribute innovative ideas to the cutting edge of technology - which requires the "luxurious" education that the "haves" have. And I'm arguing on the basis that it's short-sighted to dismiss the innovative ideas that could arise from the "have-nots."