If your income rises by more than mine how does that make me poorer? And don't say the problem is stagnant wages, that is a whole separate problem all unto itself and has nothing to do with inequality.
Piketty's theory. If rate of return on capital is faster than economic growth, it follows that capital accumulates where the rate of return on capital is best. Not so simple practically when you add in money supply etc, but that's the idea.
CEOs who earn millions just because they can, not because they really deserve it. I have nothing against good wages, but it's just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not talking about that, I am sorry, but your case is just a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the problem. I am talking about real redistribution of wealth. Capital in the Twenty-First Century might be a good book to explore this topic.
How much should they make? How much is a good 3rd baseman worth? If people were payed what they deserve I would be broke. Please keep your economic morality off of my earnings.
Then why doesn't everybody just give all their money to the guy who has the highest return on capital and we can all share the profits according to how much we gave?
@java My argument doesn't stem from moralizing. A 3rd baseman is worth whatever the market will pay for it. However, the quality of a market's valuation depends on the liquidity. It is easy to find an efficient valuation on a cheap laborer, but a CEOs value is relatively more prone to overvaluation and bubbles. Hypothetically if the world were awash in 3rd basemans and CEOs we wouldn't be worrying about their pay. The hypothesis is that returning excess capital from high earners to somewhere else down the pyramid is a more efficient, productive dollar for a state interested in managing its economy's imbalances manually. I gather that you're being facetious, but I'll respond anyway. It's not a bad idea if we could ensure no corruption in the process, but obviously we can't. Common or shared property schemes are not unheard of in utopian ideals. But, most relevant and practical, it's because everybody's mechanism of return on capital depends on everybody else's. Nobody has a return on capital without everybody else. I'd say that is the very definition and mechanism of trade; you exchange capital/assets for capital/assets worth more. Capitalism and trade is a positive sum game, but it does not mean the distribution within the trade is proportional or "fair", or that this relationship does not become more imbalanced once the game slows in total growth. I don't find this a controversial idea.
Then do it like the Year of Jubilee or the end of a Monopoly Game. One time then leave me alone and don't nickel and dime me to death.
Obviously, consistent policy is more stable than jubilee. Disdainful though you seem to be of any collectivist policies, unless you are a CEO with an overinflated price, you're probably on the side of those who benefit from an economy with less income inequality.