Wealth inequality is worse now than the era of robber barons & gilded age.

Who cares? If higher wealth inequality produces a higher standard of living for the majority (note, median not mean), I’m all for it. Policy should not be driven by envy.

▲

Libidinalecon 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You should care because people vote and the social consequences are going to be devastating.

It is easy for me to take this perspective too because I never had much student debt or children.

The median though is getting crushed if they went to college and are paying for daycare.

If you are getting crushed for going to school and having children that is a pretty clear breakdown of the social contract.

The consequences are obvious. People are going to vote in socialist policies and the whole engine is going to get thrown in reverse.

The "let them eat cake" strategy is never the smart strategy.

It is not obvious at all our system is even compatible with the internet. If the starting conditions are 1999, it would seem like the system is imploding. It is easy to pretend like everything is working out economically when we borrowed 30 trillion dollars during that time from the future.

	▲	roenxi a day ago \| parent [-]
		> The median though is getting crushed if they went to college and are paying for daycare. > If you are getting crushed for going to school and having children that is a pretty clear breakdown of the social contract. That isn't a factor in wealth inequality. Inequality is how much money they have relative to people like Musk and Bezos - or just local business owners. The poor side of that comparison always has such little wealth/income that their circumstances don't really matter. Someone poor will be sitting in the +-$100k band and not be particularly creditworthy. When compared to a millionaire the gap is still going to be about a million dollars whether they're on the crushed or non-crushed side of the band. Part of the reason the economic situation gets so bad is because people keep trying to shift the conversation to inequality instead of talking about what actually matters - living standards and opportunities. And convincing people to value accumulating capital, we're been playing this game for centuries, inter-generational savings could have had a real impact if people focused on being effective about it.

▲

forgetfreeman 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It isn't, so now what?

▲

jandrewrogers 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In the gilded age people were worth a larger fraction of the entire country’s GDP than today. Rockefeller alone was something like 2% of GDP.

▲

ETH_start 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The 1870-1900 period experienced the greatest expansion of U.S. industry, and the fastest rise in both U.S. wages and U.S. life expectancy, in history.