I would actually suggest that you have not emphasized the essential importance of inequality enough!
In a complex dynamic system such as human society, the knowledge and problem solving capacity is in great part a factor of specialization and exchange. For this to work reasonably well, there needs to be signals and rewards for the discovery and fulfillment of the actions necessary produce the constant changing stream of solutions necessary for human flourishing. In other words, we depend upon a merit based system where the best and brightest are channeled into the role where they can add the most value (and where they are strongly disincentivized to waste their time). Potential brain surgeons need somehow to be encouraged to spend decades of their lives learning to add their special value, while entrepreneurs are incentivized to experiment with billions of risk to create long shot novel benefits to consumers.
The point is that inequality isn’t something which we should apologize for, it is something which is necessary and should be celebrated as such.
Of course, not all inequality is good inequality, and even good inequality can have negative side effects. Examples of bad inequality are where the system is rigged to benefit the successful at the expense of others. Rent seeking, privilege, cartels, monopolies, elite exploitation, cheating and so forth. Examples of negative externalities include how failure can lead to negative spirals of catastrophic collapse. Bad inequality does need to be minimized, but good inequality needs to be encouraged and rewarded. And there is even bad equality, such as where free riders benefit at the expense of the productive, reducing inequality while lowering total productivity.
I have a lot more I could say, but have already gone on too long. Let me just end by stating that I agree that the focus of a successful society is on prosperity and progress and fairness and not inequality of outcome. Indeed, where I see excessive focus on reducing inequality I usually also see an attempt to undermine the system and replace decentralized complexity with authoritarian control.
I would not say that inequality is necessary for progress to start, but it is an inevitable outcome of a dynamic society. It is really about how people achieve their income and wealth, not whether some achieve more than others (which is inevitable in all societies beyond Hunter Gatherers.
• huge mass of peasants living at subsistence levels.
• Modern societies have much higher standards-of-living, but similar levels of inequality.
To some degree this is comparing apples and oranges.
There can certainly be a high, middle, and low classifications for wealth or what have you, so premodern and modern societies had/have wide disparities.
But (at least in the US) the definition of "poverty" keeps changing to some % level of income, so is always a relative measure that can "never" be totally corrected. Someone has to be in the top 1% and some others in the bottom quintile by definition.
But most of us think of real poverty (as an absolute measure) at or almost below subsistence as provided above: begging for food or scrounging for it in garbage, sleeping in doorways, etc. Even homeless people with tents and shopping carts are pretty well up above subsistence. And I saw mentioned somewhere that even the poorest folks in the US pretty much match the middle class in India, etc.
All of this leading to a question as to what would we really consider a (not so relative) definition of poverty or subsistence today? Obama said "at some point you have made enough money", but then goes on to live in a $15M estate in Mass. coast (and 2 or 3 others?). Many of us don't really mind others having "great" wealth as we know they can't use more than 2 or 3 yachts, planes, mansions, etc., as long as that they don't use that wealth to assume greater political control than one person/one vote and whatever open (non corrupt) persuasion they pursue in "fair" political contests. That is the "unfairness" that Dems and Repubs both complain about. "Don't tread on me!" :-)
Remember that the Scheidl book is about inequality, not poverty. Those are two very different things, although they are often conflated.
Defining poverty in wealthy societies is highly contested and fairly arbitrary. The official federal definition made some sense in the 1960s, but not anymore. I will write more on this later. I generally prefer the term “lower-income” instead of poor, but I think we are stuck with the term.
Subsistence is typically defined as about $450 per year. Obviously, not applicable to wealthy societies today.
I would actually suggest that you have not emphasized the essential importance of inequality enough!
In a complex dynamic system such as human society, the knowledge and problem solving capacity is in great part a factor of specialization and exchange. For this to work reasonably well, there needs to be signals and rewards for the discovery and fulfillment of the actions necessary produce the constant changing stream of solutions necessary for human flourishing. In other words, we depend upon a merit based system where the best and brightest are channeled into the role where they can add the most value (and where they are strongly disincentivized to waste their time). Potential brain surgeons need somehow to be encouraged to spend decades of their lives learning to add their special value, while entrepreneurs are incentivized to experiment with billions of risk to create long shot novel benefits to consumers.
The point is that inequality isn’t something which we should apologize for, it is something which is necessary and should be celebrated as such.
Of course, not all inequality is good inequality, and even good inequality can have negative side effects. Examples of bad inequality are where the system is rigged to benefit the successful at the expense of others. Rent seeking, privilege, cartels, monopolies, elite exploitation, cheating and so forth. Examples of negative externalities include how failure can lead to negative spirals of catastrophic collapse. Bad inequality does need to be minimized, but good inequality needs to be encouraged and rewarded. And there is even bad equality, such as where free riders benefit at the expense of the productive, reducing inequality while lowering total productivity.
I have a lot more I could say, but have already gone on too long. Let me just end by stating that I agree that the focus of a successful society is on prosperity and progress and fairness and not inequality of outcome. Indeed, where I see excessive focus on reducing inequality I usually also see an attempt to undermine the system and replace decentralized complexity with authoritarian control.
I largely agree with you.
I would not say that inequality is necessary for progress to start, but it is an inevitable outcome of a dynamic society. It is really about how people achieve their income and wealth, not whether some achieve more than others (which is inevitable in all societies beyond Hunter Gatherers.
From Quick summary of Scheidel’s book
• huge mass of peasants living at subsistence levels.
• Modern societies have much higher standards-of-living, but similar levels of inequality.
To some degree this is comparing apples and oranges.
There can certainly be a high, middle, and low classifications for wealth or what have you, so premodern and modern societies had/have wide disparities.
But (at least in the US) the definition of "poverty" keeps changing to some % level of income, so is always a relative measure that can "never" be totally corrected. Someone has to be in the top 1% and some others in the bottom quintile by definition.
But most of us think of real poverty (as an absolute measure) at or almost below subsistence as provided above: begging for food or scrounging for it in garbage, sleeping in doorways, etc. Even homeless people with tents and shopping carts are pretty well up above subsistence. And I saw mentioned somewhere that even the poorest folks in the US pretty much match the middle class in India, etc.
All of this leading to a question as to what would we really consider a (not so relative) definition of poverty or subsistence today? Obama said "at some point you have made enough money", but then goes on to live in a $15M estate in Mass. coast (and 2 or 3 others?). Many of us don't really mind others having "great" wealth as we know they can't use more than 2 or 3 yachts, planes, mansions, etc., as long as that they don't use that wealth to assume greater political control than one person/one vote and whatever open (non corrupt) persuasion they pursue in "fair" political contests. That is the "unfairness" that Dems and Repubs both complain about. "Don't tread on me!" :-)
Remember that the Scheidl book is about inequality, not poverty. Those are two very different things, although they are often conflated.
Defining poverty in wealthy societies is highly contested and fairly arbitrary. The official federal definition made some sense in the 1960s, but not anymore. I will write more on this later. I generally prefer the term “lower-income” instead of poor, but I think we are stuck with the term.
Subsistence is typically defined as about $450 per year. Obviously, not applicable to wealthy societies today.
Edit needed:
“Equality is simply too vague of a concept to have any true meeting.”
Good catch!
Corrected.