Is wealth inequality inherently bad? I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point. Is that 'certain point' a moving goal post?
Lack of agency is. When people are not allowed to take decisions on their own they are unhappy.
Once money covers your basic needs. Money becomes power. High wealth inequality is directly linked to high power inequality.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/how-the-rich-co...
- Of the policies listed on the chart, the only one that was passed within four years was the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was opposed by the lowest-income voters and the median voter. On the other hand, the three policies supported by the bottom and middle deciles but opposed by the richest decile — ranging from tax increases to workplace protections — never passed. Across the board, the richest are most skeptical of redistributive policies.
From: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...
- Rising immobility and rising inequality aren’t like two pieces of driftwood that happen to have shown up on the beach at the same time, he noted. They wash up together on every shore.
So, yes. Lack of wealth inequality is bad.
In Nazi Germany, Jews were traditionally quite wealthy, but they had practically no power; in other authoritarian and/or militaristic regimes, the source of power is usually based on politics or military structure. The power in European feudalism was originally based on land ownership (so wealth-based), but in later stages it became based purely on nobility, so a dead broke nobleman could have had more power than a wealthy merchant (which led to various revolutions).
The danger of equating wealth inequality with power inequality lies in the common belief that removing the former will remove the latter, but this is not the case: it will just be replaced with a different source for the power; a different type of "wealth" if you want.
Not necessarily. Inequality seems to bring unhappiness independently of wealth.
You may have more than others. But if you get way less for your work than others, most people will be unhappy. That is why millionaires want more when they see the billionaires.
This video helps to illustrate my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
No. That point is the place where someone has enough to pay for all the basic necessities of life(food, housing, education, healthcare) without constant economic anxiety over debt, poverty or impending poverty. Studies have pointed out that over and above this point is where wealth and happiness diverge. A 2010 study had that point pegged at about $75,000 for an individual.
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489
Other studies have shown very similar results, with a sudden drop off in the correlation between happiness and wealth after basic needs have been met. Several are cited here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/money-can-buy-happiness-but-...
Exactly! Most people in the world are well below that "certain point". In an ideal world that everyone has enough to feel safe and secure, probably wealth inequality won't matter as much.
That is, wealth inequality is the enemy of democracy.
Wealth is only one form of power; it is at least achieved in ideal circumstances through voluntary interaction. Whereas many wish to exercise their power through threats of violence.
That point is significantly above median person income, or a similar comparison to median household income.
Suppose it depends on where you stand (or fall) in the resulting correction event.