Universal Basic Income

[wufwugy]

Inequality is a natural outcome when populations of individuals all engage in their individually preferred creative endeavors. And variances in work ethic, aptitude, and temperament all factor in to the various unequal outcomes. So in a way you might say that income inequality is a good thing, since it is indicative that freedom exists.

That's a very good point.

The Pareto distribution exists all over the place. Even where you might last think to look, like among Harvard graduates. Harvard graduates have about the same inequality between themselves as the rich and poor do between themselves. This inequality phenomenon is just something we don't understand at all. We don't even know if inequality is bad (it might even be good).

The problem with it is that the bottom is a magnet. If you have no money, it's really hard to get some. If you have some money, it's relatively easy to get more.

Here's an example why frame matters and statistics can be so misleading. Because, yeah, what you said is true. Yet, while it might look like it suggests that the more well off somebody is, the more easily they become more well off. Yeah, well, not really. How about we change the measurement just slightly, to percentage increases. Then we find that the less you have, the easier it is to increase your gains. Now isn't that a different story?

So people stack up at the bottom and they need outside assistance if they're ever going to get out of that. Such assistance exists. There are innumerable charitable agencies, government welfare programs, and public education facilities to provide people with opportunities to advance. As it stands now, a very very high percentage of people (something like 85+%) in the bottom 20% of the income distribution move out of that bracket within a decade or two.

Do you agree with the theory that welfare contributes to people producing less than they otherwise would?