New study reveals wealth inequality was never inevitable

Not to mention, most if the wealth in a primary residence isn't really accessible/utilized. A house bought years ago might appreciate to the point you wouldn't be able to afford it today. But if you sell it, where else are you going to live unless moving to a cheaper area? Then you have people who are house poor vs rich people who live relatively modestly (eg Warren Buffet).

And thats all in the US. Other countries/cultures may have different practices that do not tie wealth to large houses.

No the rich will play it such that that never happens. Poor folks are kept just poor enough to not disturb the rich.

In our system, the rich will convince some of the poor that they _could_ be rich. Together, those groups will feed on the rest of the poor.

The rich have figured out how to deal with unionists, socialists, and communists. This is not the same as the previous gilded age.

Greed is very much a product of the system we live in, just look at the numb-wits who run this world.

Among native peoples, sharing seems to be the default.

The gane was designed exactly to become a monopoly after a few rounds. The real world have a lot more variables, so it's not comparable.

In Monopoly you always end with extreme inequality, because the game is designed to make that happen. Who designs the game of real world politics?

> Wealth inequality is only as inevitable as the Pareto Principle.

In that case it’s not inevitable at all. The Pareto Principle is an observation, not an immutable law of the universe. Some things have an 80/20 split, others have different percentages, others still do not fit the principle.

I think that question betrays an assumption that somehow insane wealth accumulation is "natural" and anything else is not. Modern capitalism with all its rules and (often brutal) enforcement requires no less "effort and invasive control" that alternatives, it's just that the wealthy are writing the rules in their favor.

Eh? Don’t you think you’re mindlessly citing the Pareto Principle here as if it’s by itself a natural law that is necessary? I mean, I don’t even have to argue in favor of perfect wealth distribution—it’s simply possible to partition any resource along the lines of 60-40 or 40/40/20, it’s just a matter of initiative.

And yes, in the case of wealth distribution, public policy is a matter of initiative. That in itself a long discussion because there are many factors involved in policymaking and in what makes policies politically viable, but already, those are more interesting and thoughtful questions than just chalking it all up to “pArEtO pRiNcIpLe”.

There's many ways to get low wealth inequality.

1. reset the accumulation every 50 years or more often. The reset can be a war, a dictatorship, revolution, whatever. It's how Eastern Europe has low wealth inequality despite no systemic measures. It's not a stable solution (if you leave them alone they will accumulate capital and become oligarchy unless other measures are implemented). That's why EU Eastern Europe is different from non-EU Eastern Europe by the way - EU is a huge regulatory force preventing oligarchies from arising.

2. taxation + welfare system that redistributes enough wealth to prevent runaway feedback loops. See socialdemocratic Europe.

3. other regulations preventing non-monetary runaway loops (lobbying laws, antimonopoly rules, electoral system preventing influence from money into politics, trade unions, etc.)

4. economy focused on activities that are less suitable for wealth accumulation. This is not a binary switch, more like a spectrum going from hydrocarbons to service based economy. It's also not a long-term solution, it just speeds up or slows down the accumulation. Even in service-based economy you eventually get oligarchy if you have no regulation (see USA).

IMHO the obvious choice is combination of 2 and 3, the others are shortcuts that happen by accident and you can't depend on them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_we...

BTW "invasive control" is a biased view. Unchecked unregulated capitalism is just as invasive if not more. The only difference is who is invasive towards whom. I prefer elected officials controlling my employers over unelected billionaires controlling their workers. Notice how in US it's common to have to explain to your boss why you want a day off. Like he owns you and it's his good will that you may be allowed to get sick or to rest.

In EU not only is this illegal - even if it would be legal - it would be a huge breach of etiquette for your employer to ask how exactly are you sick.

For someone from Europe it's USA that looks crazy invasive.

How much do you think was the reward that set in motion all the free and open source software that underlie the many OSes, DBs, and dev tools that we still use for free today?

Ambition, with respect to wealth, can be a double-edged sword. One can imagine being both ambitious and allowing everyone to share in the benefits, and the act of participating in some advance as its own reward. Those that do gain some advantage often are hiding the tremendous work of others, gaining a grotesque share of the fortune for their being in the right place and time. To paraphrase a scene from Life of Brian, it is the (so-called) ambitious, often, who are the problem.

> Too little inequality means there is nothing to strive for, the ambitious won’t have much reward to work for.

That kind of "ambition" is greed. There are other forms of currency that are arguably much more desired to a healthy society and don't go away in a more equal society: reputation, respect, intellectual authority, etc.

> Too little inequality means there is nothing to strive for, the ambitious won’t have much reward to work for.

That only makes sense if you think that people are only ever motivated by money.

Talking about the putative dangers of "too little inequality" when the amount we have today is so absurdly high seems kind of disingenuous, even if that's not what's intended.

In order for there to be "too little inequality" to the extent that you describe, it would have to be impossible for anyone to, say, earn more than about $100k/yr (based on current median incomes in the US). So far as I know, no one with an iota of credibility has proposed anything remotely like this.

As it stands, any time any level of increase in taxes on the ultra-wealthy is proposed, people come out of the woodwork claiming that a higher tax rate on those making $100m, $500m, $1b/yr would just destroy all interest in striving and doing well, which is so clearly absurd.

...And, unfortunately, we also know that there are a fair number of people for whom reduced inequality would destroy their ambition, because their ambition has nothing to do with being reasonably wealthy themselves or having financial security: the reward, for them, is very explicitly being able to treat other people like they aren't even human. And that's not something society should ever accept, from anyone.

It's true that formal wealth systems (like land, stock ownership and trademarks) require an elaborate legal and cultural infrastructure to maintain — but only at scale. The absence of such systems doesn't eliminate wealth inequality, it just changes how it's enforced.

In less formal or collapsed systems, wealth and resources are often controlled by a ruling oligarchy or individuals whose hard power acts as a de facto property right.

For example, many argue that Vladimir Putin is one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, despite lacking formal ownership on paper — his political and military power effectively grants him control over immense resources. Wealth inequality ultimately stems from control over resources, whether legitimized by law or enforced through power.

The argument that it is inevitable is used as a justification for the status quo.

If it turned out that wealth inequality was unavoidable, it would change the nature of the solutions worth exploring.

Your examples are confusing wealth with social status. An influencer or politician may have relatively low wealth compared to a lottery winner, but the winner has vastly less impact on society.

The issue with wealth inequality is it feeds on itself where other forms of influence tend to erode over time and need to be constantly maintained. A surprisingly long list of people could literally donate 100+M to every presidential election for the rest of their life with interest making up the difference before the next election.

"debunks the myth" => "makes a case"

And the question begging of assuming that equality is a desirable goal. We also need to look at the cost of equality (of house sizes?) -- if it requires authoritarian government, theocracy, slavery, subjugation of other tribes, maybe it's not necessarily a goal unto it self? Those other factors at least need to be considered!

Truly garbage science writing.

In your mind, yes. That's why studies are necessary.

To quote codr7 without violating HN guidelines:

> There's a concerted effort in this world to make all alternatives look worse.