This comment doesn't make any sense without defining "extreme" vs "normal" income equality. That is far from obvious.
Do you think that technology alone can't produce extreme income inequality? Why?
Do you think that technology alone can't produce extreme income inequality? Why?
The argument is over economic inequality which I believe most take to mean wealth inequality, not income inequality.
Do you think that technology alone can't produce extreme income inequality? Why?
Of course not. You need people using the technology as well. Extreme inequality results from the simple fact (as exhaustively supported by Piketty) that r > g. Capital, by definition, is technology.
Combine stuff like that with executives making 300x the average (not worst) employee to see system is clearly rigged against the many for a very few. Not even top 1%: a fraction of a percent.
Determining an acceptable level of income inequality is a moving target requiring lots of analysis of data and whatever but there exists such a point at which you could say that income inequality is untenable, just the same as there exists a point at which inflation is untenable.
The "acceptable" level of inflation is around 3%, but even inflation in the low double digits isn't necessarily unworkable. It's somewhat arbitrary and a comoplex policy decision, but it's fair to say that such a level of income inequality exists at which it becomes untenable (even if we don't know what it is).
What is extreme economic inequality vs normal economic inequality? Honest question -- I literally have no idea.
Extreme Economic inequality example. People working in Walmart for less than a working living v.s. the Walmart family or the Koch family.
Are you saying that technology can't cause extreme economic inequality? Comparing a Wal-mart worker vs. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Paul Graham sounds like extreme economic inequality by your definition.
I think you are missing exactly the point of the post, while accusing him of being confused.
However they do have something against someone like Uber or Wallmart or the Koch brothers.
"PG insist on confusing extreme economic inequality with normal economic inequality"
Last post:
"Most people have nothing against the inequality created by most startups"
His point was that startups can produce extreme income inequality (without the system being rigged). The whole point of his essay was to not lump all the causes of income inequality together.
PG believes that people are against the inequality startups create. They are not because most startups don't become family dynasties. Thats the point. Only PG is talking about startups. Thats not what people talk about when they critique economic inequality and that's what he doesn't seem to understand.