Everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy. But there is a lot more going on here than the straightforward "some people are older, some people save".
Of course. And if you read to the bottom of my post, you'll see that I agree that there's too much inequality in the world.
The point of this post isn't to argue that the existing level of wealth inequality is appropriate -- rather, it's to point out that the appropriate level of wealth inequality is surprisingly high.
Absolutely not for me. Arguably, if all citizens had basic needs met (including "luxury" items that enable participating in society as equals – cell phones and internet connections, for example) and had equal opportunity to advance, that would be acceptable. Not what I consider to be a fair society, but acceptable.
Oh I agree, but for that you need everyone to be similarly educated, which I'd argue requires participation on the part of the citizen. Which might be impossible.
I think it's enough to provide all the basic needs so no one needs to spend extra money on survival. Given that, I get philosophical about work: I think people would contribute more to society if they had the choice of how to do so. My theory is people flourish pursuing goals when the pursuit defines their identity.
It's hard to make office work meaningful when you don't care about the business you're in. Most will settle there for needs met. The parallel is the poor farmer who loves her job but doesn't make enough money to survive.
I'd love to study how identity effects job satisfaction.
Of course. And if you read to the bottom of my post, you'll see that I agree that there's too much inequality in the world.
The point of this post isn't to argue that the existing level of wealth inequality is appropriate -- rather, it's to point out that the appropriate level of wealth inequality is surprisingly high.