I disagree, wealth inequality is an intrinsic bad. Just look at the power wielded by the likes of Musk, Ellison, Thiel... They are able to bend the rules in a way that negatively impacts the general population's material conditions, and are leading the country straight into authoritarianism.

Don't be fooled, those people don't create any value. They could disappear tomorrow and the world would be none the poorer. Quite the contrary in fact. Wealth is created by working, not owning, never forget this basic fact.

Average standard of living can rise even if it decreases for 99.9% of people. Median standard of living is what you want to increase, and increasing wealth inequality does not help with that.

Where do you think the money that is accrued by the most wealthy will be spent/invested/parked? What will its effects be on the broader economy?

Assuming that the money is all used for altruistic purpose, I could agree with your point. But we know that this money is often used for not so altruistic purposes like investing in PE which asset strip the productive parts of economy or use the money to influence politics and elected representatives via lobbying.

>>Where do you think the money that is accrued by the most wealthy will be spent/invested/parked?

In most advanced economies today, that's equity. The ordinary person thinks of wealth as money lying around in the bank, which the rich person refuses to spend on anything useful. And instead either hoards, or spends on luxury things which cause resentment to the remainder.

The real question is for most people today its easier than ever to invest and then give it to their children. Why aren't people doing it?

>The real question is for most people today its easier than ever to invest and then give it to their children. Why aren't people doing it?

I've been out of full time work for 2.5 years now and had to slowly dwindle my 401k when emergencies popped up.

I didn't think this community was this isolated from the economy given the hundreds of thousands of tech workers displaced these past few years alone. Take a look at what it's like for non-tech workers and come back to ask that question.

Your mistake is thinking that the ordinary person is sitting on a pile of cash.

The median person in the US has about $8k, which is basically enough to cover one emergency.

Or building companies that employ tens or hundreds of thousands.

And then they lobby to reduce protections and layoff haphazardly to male sure there's no career progression. Then when that's exhausted you move everything overseas because that's still too expensive.

Yup, altruistic job nakers, huh?

> the people who created the most value leave your country

You mean the workers? Why would they leave if inequality is reduced, that would mean their standard of living would increase?

Anyone who wants to leave is free to, people are tired of the threats, just do it already. The people who leave will be spiting their own faces, and the people who stay behind will fill the demand vacuum.

That feels like it should be true, but it's not. Humans are hierarchical social animals, not logical loners. Their well being and happiness is tied to the group.

Extreme wealth inequality means extreme power inequality.

Do you really think a world with extreme power inequality is anything good?

this supposes that all resources on earth are infinite, which is blatantly false.

moreover this supposes that wealth does not buy political power, which is also blatantly false.

this is the fastest way to hell in modern societies.