Wealth Inequality

VOICE & VISION | Society & Perspective

By TLS

This is an interesting one. Originally I was thinking this would fall under the Controversy post section. But, after digging into it a bit, I think most people are somewhere in the middle rather than on the poles on this one, so it became a Wednesday post instead.

So, what are the extreme possibilities of wealth inequality?

Two or three, or perhaps only one quadrillionaire, and then eight-plus billion starving masses.

Or…

All eight-plus billion have exactly the same amount.

Neither option sounds all that great to me. But why? Option one? Probably pretty easy to pick apart. First, I’m sure I won’t be the quadrillionaire. Even if I were though, only the most insane would actually want this situation so I’m going to say no to this one.

Option two? Everyone has exactly the same amount. Hmmmm, I don’t really like that either. This, on the face of it, should be ideal, but I don’t think it is.

I think, maybe, what it comes down to is option one is clearly far too extreme. Whereas option two is far too mundane. I think that’s the catch with option two.

My guess is many would argue stridently for option two, especially our colossally misguided Social Justice Warriors out there. Equality for all, no Haves or Have-Nots. I think that is probably short-sighted and misses a much bigger point. There are two ways this option could play out. First, human nature could fundamentally change to embrace the exact same for all. Yeaaaah, we’re not living in that universe. It also sounds a little too shaved-headed/white robe-sandle-wearing to me as well. No thanks.

Second, some entity (be it governmental, alien, or supernatural, take your pick) redistributes all wealth. Since we’re not living in that other universe, I think this option would devastate society. Very quickly, very few people would try to succeed. Innovation, development, and progress would stall, then likely die. There would be no developments in medicine, renewable energy, culture, or arts. It would all just wither away. How could it not? There would be no incentive to do anything.

Sure, some people would still do some things. But, I think that would be a shadow of what could be and would also likely only have a small local influence. No world-improving benefits.

So, the extremes don’t seem to be the answer, as is typically the case. That means somewhere in between must be the better choice. That means a bell curve shape. This in turn means we get Elon, Bezos, Saudi Princes, Russian oligarchs as well as the homeless, the downtrodden, and the failures in life.

It would probably be great if everyone actually did well in life and there were no suffering. Unfortunately, that universe is probably not available to us anytime soon. So just like everything else in life, we must take the good with the bad. For without the bad, we would almost certainly never see the good.

If equality could end ambition, and ambition drives progress, maybe the real challenge isn’t eliminating inequality, it’s managing it.

How do we build a world that’s fair enough to live in, but ambitious enough to keep improving?

Clip art

<a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/social-justice-money-flat-composition-with-unequal-opportunities-people-with-more-income-less-illustration_16396829.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=3&uuid=fe01c49f-7a9e-484d-bbbe-934874e9d91f">Image by macrovector on Freepik</a>