I am a poor college student that got a scholarship that paid for most of my college education. My family is too poor to pay for such an education. I got no issue with incredibly rich people. What they're going to do? Buy that 100 inch TV?
> Why aren't the bottom 99 percent marching in the streets?
> One possible answer is sheer ignorance.
And then goes on to demonstrate said ignorance.
It's generally not poor people who revolt, it's the middle class. Especially if there has been an event which created a newly disenfranchised middle class. If the middle class is doing ok, there's little to worry about. If they feel they are getting shafted... that's when potential trouble starts brewing.
Actual levels of wealth and disenfranchisement have little to do with social stability as it relates to wealth. It's all relative perception.
The United States doesn't exactly resemble historically tumultuous places where there is widespread abject poverty and a few wealthy nobles.
I can't think of any society where most people had A/C, cable TV, two cars, and a college education that revolted because some people had a bigger house, a bigger TV, a more expensive set of cars, and a slightly better education.
Interestingly, to the extent that there is social unrest in the United States today, it is a revolt against the would-be equalizers and the centralization of power.
If one advocates against wealth inequality on the grounds that angry mobs might engage in violence if inequality were too large, shouldn't one also advocate against X whenever there is a significant risk of violence by mobs?
If policy should cater to angry mobs threatening violence on issues of wealth inequality, should policy cater to angry mobs on issues of racial hatred or religious conflict as well?
Regardless, you are ducking the meta question. Is "a mob might become violent if we don't do X" a good argument for doing X? I.e., if angry racist mobs start rioting over a black president, should we impeach Obama? Should we engage in appeasement, paying each racist $500 to go home (perhaps levying a tax on blacks to pay for it)? Similarly, should we ban criticism of Christianity if Christians form lynch mobs of their own?
Which angry violent mobs should we surrender to?
Interesting. That sounds like it's a problem with poor people being angry and violent, not with income inequality per se.
It seems like spending money on the military and law enforcement would be a better investment than reducing income inequality under your scenario. And it makes sense, too--if people threaten violence, and you can afford to beat them, why pay tribute instead? It's not barbaric, but it does mean letting barbarians rule your society.
Unfortunately, in the real world it's correlated with a lot of unpleased effects. See the other replies to your comment or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects_of_... for some details.
I'm saying that vast inequality in the distribution of wealth is a bad thing; historically, such inequality tends to lead first to oligarchy and then to entrenched aristocracy.
You are interpreting this as an argument for absolute equality of wealth for all people, an argument I've not made and would not make. Some inequality of wealth distribution is a good thing; concentration of extreme percentages of total wealth into a tiny fraction of the populace is a bad thing.
A good explanation of the difference this makes shows up in chapter 3 of de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", where he discusses the impact of different inheritance laws on American and European society. The traditional European system of primogeniture created and favored hereditary aristocracy; the American system of division among multiple heirs made this impossible, and created more opportunities for social mobility since wealth could not be hoarded across generations, but instead was gradually distributed through the effects of the inheritance laws.
Hawthorne said that "Families are always rising and falling in America" and to a large extent this is true. The rich don't necessarily stay rich, and the top 100 companies from 50 or 100 years ago bear little or no resemblance to the top 100 companies today. While we may have high levels of inequality, it does not appear to be an entrenched inequality.
This can obviously happen without them being aware that they're doing that. A good example is the Chicago law prof who laments being too poor for the temporary Bush tax breaks to expire.
What he's not saying explicitly is; "I don't want to pay for healthcare for poor people". Probably as he's already got a pretty nice health plan already.
Now you can bet that a Law Professor has more clout than your average construction worker, so his ignorance at his own wealth is more damaging.
Even if you don't have an issue with rich people being rich, on a personal level, you may have an issue with the system allocating wealth in such an unequal matter.