[deleted]•

[removed]

1
ritchie70•

I'd argue that a lower Gini index is more conducive to a good society that doesn't have the extremely wealthy running the country. The index is considerably higher today than it was in revolutionary times, and even more so regionally. (So say New England had a lower index than the 13 colonies overall.)

If I recall correctly, it was lower in the south, including slaves, than it is today nationally.

We're turning into a plutocracy and that's not good.

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

2
ritchie70•

I'm not real fond of keyword automation. I'm saying that the current state of the world is a plutocracy. Nothing to do with ancap.

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

0
Perleflamme•

Maybe once per first replying comment to the post is enough, isn't it?

1
thingisthink•

a lower Gini index is more conducive to a good society that doesn't have the extremely wealthy running the country.

And the article shows how ancap would produce that result. In this case, the keyword automation worked perfectly.

2
Drift3r•

A spike in income inequality is a symptom of a lack of income mobility. In other words income inequality will always exist in a functioning market but a real problem occurs when people get trapped (name your reason why this is occurring) at the lower end of the labor market.

Their low wages reflect this lack of income mobility and when you get a glut of people who are bottle-necked at the bottom then wages start to creep down on a vast large scale throughout the economy because the supply of labor at the bottom starts to pool up which is again, pretty unhealthy for a economy and society in the long term.

So if you are going to fight for something then fight against a lack of income mobility. Fight to provide actual economic opportunities for others to rise up based upon their efforts and upon fostering a healthy economy. Avoid the ideologically inspired laziness to tear others down but instead promote the agenda that allows for positive mobility (their wages increasing as they move up the ladder of success and prosperity through different jobs throughout their lives) to occur at different stages of a person's life.

Lastly, the reason why the left clings to the income inequality issue is because it plays off the Marxist class warfare rhetoric well for them. They get people who should never of made burger flipping a "career" (or who are actually locked into that low tier job because the economy has been turned into a tar-pit that does not allow for economic opportunities to arise) all riled up but again their solution is to kick out the ladder of success and drag everyone down to the bottom while a few party elites get to rule over us all and enjoy the best of the best.

1
GlebZheglov•

"when people get trapped (name your reason why this is occurring) at the lower end of the labor market." No one is getting trapped at the bottom. Our relative mobility rates for the poor (while not amazing) are really no worse than Canada, Sweden or a number of other countries. You also blame a perceived lack of mobility on income inequality. Recent studies have shown that relative mobility rates in America have not declined even though income inequality has gone up.

1