The "right" amount of social equality

[Antonio the Sixth]

A maximum income gap of about 1:20 seems about right (although that's probably never going to happen). More realistically, we could at least ensure that no one makes less than 2/3 of the median income.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A maximum income gap of about 1:20 seems about right (although that's probably never going to happen).

That's economic equality.

Wouldn't "economic equality" in the most basic sense mean no income gap at all?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is mathematically impossible.[/quote]

Nah, it's not. Any income distribution is naturally skewed to the right.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is no optimum amount of social equality. In fact, given that markets are in a constant state of disequilibrium, there can never be an optimum amount of social equality.

lolmarkets

[Antonio the Sixth]

A maximum income gap of about 1:20 seems about right (although that's probably never going to happen).

That's economic equality.

Wouldn't "economic equality" in the most basic sense mean no income gap at all?

Closing the income gap is bringing about economic equality, not social equality. The latter deals with gender, race, and sexuality relations while the former is wealth and incomes.

Even then, economic equality is an essential component of social equality. You just can't separate wealth from its social effects.