Okay, but that’s a meaningless hypothetical that is not a consequence of reducing income inequality.
The U.S. had substantially lower income inequality during the 50s and 60s and it drove massive economic growth, the expansion of the middle class, opportunities for education and homeownership without a lifetime of debt, and so on.
The Scandinavian countries have much lower levels of income equality than we have today and their citizens report far higher levels of satisfaction with their lives in addition to having better health care outcomes and other effects of a more egalitarian society.
So you can ask whatever rhetorical question you want, but I’m not sure what the point is when your proposed scenario has nothing to do with reality.
No, you didn’t ask me that question. You asked someone else that question, who didn’t respond to you.
No, my response did not suggest I would prefer everyone be worse off. Quite the opposite, I gave multiple concrete examples of real-world scenarios where lower inequality has made people better off.
Clearly the only person you’re talking to is yourself, so this is pointless.
I think the reply notification system in Lemmy is not very good. I thought your reply is was the OP. Still your response made me think you feel that way.
Sure. No, I would not support making everyone worse off. That would be a net loss for everyone, which would be a clearly negative outcome.
But my point is that decreasing income inequality historically has not had the effect of making everyone worse off. So as I said previously, your hypothetical is not a reasonable portrayal of what would happen in a more equal society.
Meanwhile, as inequality increases, you can see the damage right in front of you. Much of an entire generation is unable to afford homes or education without going into massive debt, when their parents could attain these things because economic gains reached more people in the society of that era.
Okay, but that’s a meaningless hypothetical that is not a consequence of reducing income inequality.
The U.S. had substantially lower income inequality during the 50s and 60s and it drove massive economic growth, the expansion of the middle class, opportunities for education and homeownership without a lifetime of debt, and so on.
The Scandinavian countries have much lower levels of income equality than we have today and their citizens report far higher levels of satisfaction with their lives in addition to having better health care outcomes and other effects of a more egalitarian society.
So you can ask whatever rhetorical question you want, but I’m not sure what the point is when your proposed scenario has nothing to do with reality.
I just think it’s interesting some people would rather we all be poorer and worse off
No one besides you said that.
I asked you that question and your responses seemed like you would rather everyone is worse off as long as inequality is down.
No, you didn’t ask me that question. You asked someone else that question, who didn’t respond to you.
No, my response did not suggest I would prefer everyone be worse off. Quite the opposite, I gave multiple concrete examples of real-world scenarios where lower inequality has made people better off.
Clearly the only person you’re talking to is yourself, so this is pointless.
I think the reply notification system in Lemmy is not very good. I thought your reply is was the OP. Still your response made me think you feel that way.
Would you like to answer the question?
Sure. No, I would not support making everyone worse off. That would be a net loss for everyone, which would be a clearly negative outcome.
But my point is that decreasing income inequality historically has not had the effect of making everyone worse off. So as I said previously, your hypothetical is not a reasonable portrayal of what would happen in a more equal society.
Meanwhile, as inequality increases, you can see the damage right in front of you. Much of an entire generation is unable to afford homes or education without going into massive debt, when their parents could attain these things because economic gains reached more people in the society of that era.