There isn't a finite amount of "wealth" in the world. You can go out and make wealth every single day. The rich obtaining more of it doesn't mean there's less left over for you and I.
People need to be able to cover their needs. Food, housing, healthcare, and I'd be open to arguments in favor of education. But I don't see income inequality as bad necessarily. I see massive amounts of people unable to cover those needs as bad. Fix the problem that people can't cover their needs--not that fact that some fortunate entrepreneur got richer faster than me.
> There isn't a finite amount of "wealth" in the world. You can go out and make wealth every single day. The rich obtaining more of it doesn't mean there's less left over for you and I.
There is an essence of truth to that, but it certainly does not tell the whole story.
Consider what happens with Amazon. When they put a family-owned store out of business, those people need to work somewhere. They then turn to the only place left that has any jobs in their area: the Amazon fulfilment center. They then get a minimum wage job there. It is clear those people have directly lost wealth as a result of Amazon.
In some cases the "creating wealth" argument holds up, but in reality what is mostly happening in the age of globalism is wealth consolidation, not wealth creation. Amazon is not creating new wealth, they are simply taking all of the customers and wealth away from all of the smaller businesses and consolidating it into a single huge entity.
This obviously has strong negative consequences for the people who are losing wealth. There is a reason wages have remained stagnant for over 50 years while corporate profits keep on growing to record highs.
> In some cases the "creating wealth" argument holds up, but in reality what is mostly happening in the age of globalism is wealth consolidation, not wealth creation. Amazon is not creating new wealth, they are simply taking all of the customers and wealth away from all of the smaller businesses and consolidating it into a single huge entity.
I get where you're going with this... and I'm not in favor of monopolies and anti-competitive behavior... but Amazon is a hugely innovative company, and I do not believe that they've merely consolidated wealth without creating any. Think of just AWS as an example and all of the companies (and their employees) who've created more wealth as a result of it.
Amazon has no doubt created wealth as well. However, they have also consolidated wealth and put many small companies out of business. The extent to which they have created new wealth and the extent to which they have taken existing wealth can be argued over, but they have certainly done both. This is not exclusive to Amazon either. The same is done by all huge multinationals, and this has been happening for decades.
It is important to realize the effects that this consolidation has in terms of wage stagnation [1]. This is a very real effect that is felt by a very large percentage of the workforce. By consolidating wealth (and power) in the hands of few large companies those companies are able to pay a lot lower salaries to their employees. If your options are (1) work for Walmart for a low wage, (2) work for Amazon for a low wage, or (3) starve, you will accept whatever wage Amazon or Walmart will offer you.
In other words, as a direct consequence of these multinationals and their mode of operation, millions of people are getting lower salaries today than they would have gotten 50 years ago (adjusted for inflation) whereas overall productivity has gone up significantly. The difference is pocketed by executives and wealthy shareholders of these companies. As a result of those lower salaries, those people are now having trouble paying for core necessities (health care, education, housing).
This is the rising wealth inequality that people are talking about, and the rising wealth inequality that people want to fix.
Sure, Amazon wins by providing lower prices through economies of scale. The details of how they acquire customers of small businesses are not relevant because it does not influence the end result. Wealth is moved from one party (a small business) to another (a large multinational). There is a clear loser.
> There isn't a finite amount of "wealth" in the world.
Yes, there is. It is not limited, we can do more of it, but of course it is finite. It is also important that, the more wealth you have, the easier it becomes to make more of it. So, indeed, the rich obtaining more of it does mean there's less for you and me.
I can go outside and carve a wooden spoon out of a piece of fallen wood. I've just created wealth without taking it from anyone.
Even if I had to buy the wood from someone else, I took a $1 piece of wood and turned it into a $20 spoon. Wealth was just created without anyone loosing it. Wealth is infinite. Sure the amount of currency in circulation is finite, but currency isn't wealth.
> It is also important that, the more wealth you have, the easier it becomes to make more of it.
I agree--once you get to the point that you can make your wealth make more wealth for you, you've hit the point that you can scale beyond your time. Generally speaking having your wealth make more wealth requires investing your wealth, which is a good thing.
> So, indeed, the rich obtaining more of it does mean there's less for you and me.
This simply isn't true. See wooden spoon example above.
> Wealth was just created without anyone loosing it.
If you use the wood for the spoon, it means someone else cannot use that wood for making a ship or heating their house. You cannot go and make a million spoons to get rich without either having money to invest or breaking a few laws. And this happens because the amount of wood (or resources, in general) is not only finite but relatively scarce.
More fossil fuels can be done with enough time, so fossil fuels are infinite too as long as time doesn't cease to exist, right? Sorry, but I don't understand where you want to get. If we take that point of view, then everything is infinite, and it is impossible to have a discussion about economy in that context.
Not every wealth creation activity requires the consumption of wood. Some require nothing but time. The wooden spoon was merely a simple example of how someone can make wealth. Time is a resource that appears to be infinite--at least until an extinction level event that wipes all humans off the face of the planet (time would still exist, but our time to make wealth would be gone).
We have gone down a rabbit hole, and it sounds like you (and I too) no longer wish to dig any deeper. The point is when the rich get wealthy it doesn't demand the non-rich to get more poor.
The proportion is zero-sum by definition, and that's what's important.
Even if the pie keeps growing for everyone, the rich are taking a bigger and bigger proportion of the pie, and proportion is what makes you poor. If I have 10% of a $10M the pie today and you have 90%, and tomorrow I have 5% of a $20M pie and you have 95%, then you have proportionally taken from me, and I am worse off, despite having the same absolute dollars "pie equity".
Until roughly 1800, per capita wealth was roughly stagnant. Since then, it's increased roughly 50 times. Maybe more controversially, I'd say we're nowhere near the limits of further development to even greater wealth: technology is a long way from physical limits (e.g. compare biology to human tech), our access to resources has barely begun (e.g. solar power and resources from space).
How do you look at this history and think the right way to approach it is as a fight over who gets what part of an existing pie? That was the standard conceptualization in the beginning! It can't be the key to the 50x change. The recent headwinds against equality have also been a period of relative stagnation in productivity growth. Shouldn't we look really earnestly into how the hell progress happened in the first place?
Yes, we also have a big problem in that poverty should not exist in a society this rich. But this is genuinely a first-world problem. Job 1 is to not screw up what got us here in the first place.
>There isn't a finite amount of "wealth" in the world. You can go out and make wealth every single day. The rich obtaining more of it doesn't mean there's less left over for you and I.
Non invested savings are zero sum. This is just macro economics. If one person has a savings surplus, the other person has a savings deficit (unemployment). Buying existing housing isn't an investment. Building new housing is. Buying an existing company isn't an investment. Starting new companies or growing old companies is.
Non invested savings are growing, just look at treasury bond yields and interest rates. If you buy $100 worth of treasury bonds the government has to issue $100 in debt, otherwise yields drop. If the government doesn't issue additional debt it cannot invest the additional money on behalf of buyers of the treasury bonds. Conventionally, inflation would rise immediately because more money is circulating in the economy but it doesn't, implying excess savings that are not being invested.
> Buying existing housing isn't an investment....Buying an existing company isn't an investment.
yes it is - because the person you're buying it from now can invest the proceeds of that sale (to something else).
Buying shares off the sharemarket is investing - not because you're directly giving the company your money, but because your buying is the end of a chain of investment that directly leads to the IPO at the other end. Same with housing.
Your way of seeing only direct investment as "true" investment is too shallow, and lacks the actual nuance of how the financial markets operate. If you sell your shares to somebody else after an IPO, the IPO might not ever have happened, or that the raising of money costs more (to account for the risk of having to hold the bag till the company profits). By strata-ing the risk out to different people, the financial market allows all levels of risk to be bought, by all manner of different people.
The direct "investment only" method is as primitive as bartering for goods/services.
Assuming by "equality" you mean everyone is given the same amount of money regardless of what they do or achieve, then no it's not better than bare necessities.
A degree of struggle is good for us. It pushes us to become more than we could without it. Don't take this to mean I want everyone in poverty--that's not what I'm saying. But being motivated to work towards a financial goal is a good thing. I do not believe a life without struggle is a good life.
There are struggles outside of financial struggles too. So I understand that even if you remove the financial struggle by giving everyone the same amount of money some struggle will remain from other factors in life. But in general I've found I grow the most in difficult times. It's painful. But it's richly rewarding when you come out the other side of the struggle. Robbing life of struggle will rob you of a rich life.
People need to be able to cover their needs. Food, housing, healthcare, and I'd be open to arguments in favor of education. But I don't see income inequality as bad necessarily. I see massive amounts of people unable to cover those needs as bad. Fix the problem that people can't cover their needs--not that fact that some fortunate entrepreneur got richer faster than me.