> You can't have low inequality by definition if you decide to start paying one group a ton of money.
Sure, but you can still ensure that the lower classes have a good standard of living. Most wealth isn't zero sum. People talk about income/wealth inequality in the US, but to me, based on the complaints people have, it just seems like a proxy for poor standard of living.
> Well, this is a lot like the housing conversation in the US. "I want my house to go up in value, and be a great investment!" Also: "Why can't I afford a house?"
The big difference here is that the supply of land is fixed, and thus (almost all) housing wealth is zero sum. But for other things, this is not the case, so you can't apply the logic of housing to other things.
Sure, but you can still ensure that the lower classes have a good standard of living. Most wealth isn't zero sum. People talk about income/wealth inequality in the US, but to me, based on the complaints people have, it just seems like a proxy for poor standard of living.
> Well, this is a lot like the housing conversation in the US. "I want my house to go up in value, and be a great investment!" Also: "Why can't I afford a house?"
The big difference here is that the supply of land is fixed, and thus (almost all) housing wealth is zero sum. But for other things, this is not the case, so you can't apply the logic of housing to other things.