So you're saying given the choice of 1) the poor can be 5% better off if the rich are 0% better off or 2) the poor can be 15% better off but the rich will be 25% better off, the poor will choose option 1. Nicolas Maduro loves that logic.
Printable View
That's cool but in reality I think if we actually try to fix the problem rather than putting a bandaid on it, it's going to take a little while. There needs to be a severe cultural change in the "poor" communities and that may take a generation or two. Just redistributing money is not the answer.
I'm a big believer in Piketty's view of inequality. It's all about the proportion. The poor don't necessarily want the rich to fall, they just want the growth of wealth/capital to be proportional to the growth of economic output or income from labor. So it's not about identical income like Venezuela, it's about proportional income growth.
And I think as long as poor people can eat, get medical care, have shelter, and afford iPhones and Netflix, we're all going to be just fine. Access to Season 2 of Ozark really is a universal human right these days.
There is a whole lot of research that demonstrates that the wealth gap does in fact matter to all kinds of people. in fact even among the wealthier among us, evidence suggests that we are less satisfied with our situation when there are others doing better (and living better) than we do. See Robert Frank's work at Cornell, for example: Link to his work: https://www.johnson.cornell.edu/peop...rhf3_vitae.pdf.
Yes, I get that people are generally irrational and stupid. I'd prefer not to have irrational, stupid policy to cater to that.