P.S.: The rapid change in up and down votes is probably caused more by your confusion of socioeconomic mobility and equality (you seem to be using the two interchangeably) than anything else.
More to your point - I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work.
I don't see an easy conclusion here. The scientists driving innovation in industry are generally paid very well (this is relative, but we can probably agree they are paid higher than a median salary). The scientists driving innovation in academia are not, as a rule, paid as well as their counterparts in industry, but that doesn't stop them from contributing valuable research to their fields.
So how do we conclude that socioeconomic stance matters for a scientist's research impact, if they have grants or corporate sponsorship?
To reiterate my point - if reduced socioeconomic mobility can't be demonstrated to be a net loss for society, why does it matter if income inequality causes it or not, and how does it demonstrate income inequality as a net loss for society?
It's not so much an issue for those people who came from poorer backgrounds and became scientists (though there's still a question of whether they could have been better scientists with better early educational support), but it's a bigger issue for those who never got that chance by an accident of birth.
I don't support equality of outcome as a desirable goal, but I do support equality of opportunity.
> If people who could have been top-notch scientists, engineers, civil servants and entrepreneurs were prevented from doing so because they couldn't move up the ladder (and inversely, rich rent-seekers couldn't move down), society is deprived of their contributions and is worse off.
Why are they being perevented ? If I am the CEO, would not it be against my own interest to prevent my employees from making a contribution ? What ladder is that you speak of ? It certainly cannot be salary. Is there a caste system in company ? If people are being prevented based on their position in social ladder (such as caste system) does it even matter if they have more income ?
> Why are they being perevented ?
Well, education is expensive -- and has an opportunity cost -- so low-income people often cannot afford to improve their skills and earn more income. If I am poor, and I have enough intelligence to become a good scientist, engineer, or artist, but cannot afford to go to university and gather the requisite skills, then this is a loss to society.
Why do you classify it as social mobility ? Would not economic mobility be a better term considering education and skills are economic goods not social.
> Well, education is expensive -- and has an opportunity cost -- so low-income people often cannot afford to improve their skills and earn more income.
I thought it was not economic inequality but something else. But yes this make sense and its expected/desired of a good economy. This is not preventing.
> If I am poor, and I have enough intelligence to become a good scientist, engineer, or artist, but cannot afford to go to university and gather the requisite skills, then this is a loss to society.
Thats why the concept of loan/investments exist. All you have to is convince them that its net positive for them too.
Also this not loss. This is absence of profit.
Obviously life will always be somewhat unfair, but we should always see things that decrease fairness as a negative, unless they make up for it in other ways.
The first section of your comment was about socioeconomic mobility, but starting with the "two axioms" portion, you started talking about inequality instead. The two concepts are different, although related.
> I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work.
Not very, but for people at the bottom of the ladder, they need some socioeconomic mobility to become a scientist in the first place.
> if reduced socioeconomic mobility can't be demonstrated to be a net loss for society
That's presupposing that it can't, and thus begging the question.
It depends on the end goal. If the end goal is scientific advancement, for example, mobility into the educated and academic class is important to provide intellectual diversity. If we bifurcate society into the educated and uneducated, it would likely restrict the flow of new ideas and discovery.
If you can demonstrate that reduced social mobility is an issue, and that this is increased by progressively greater income inequality (the latter of which I probably agree with on cursory inspection), then it seems income inequality is a net loss.
However, from a utilitarian perspective, I don't see a reason to care about social mobility if quality of life increases for everyone, not just the upper classes.
Keep in mind that I am working on two axioms:
1. Income inequality is a mathematical certainty in a functional society with more than n participants, where n is the maximum number of people who can be personally and honestly cooperative with each other, and
2. Income inequality refers to differences in an individual's absolute resources available for consumption, not their quality of life (exceptions granted for luxury consumption goods, not basic utilities that are available across all social classes).
As a very simplistic example that I'd enjoy having holes poked in, Apple has generated wondrous income inequality for many of its engineers and management. However, it has also leveraged economies of scale and competitive forces to manufacture a mass market product that is, statistically, enjoyed by even the poorest households in America and which affords its users with the most powerful innovation since the printing press in their pockets.
EDIT: This comment has had a rapid change in up and down votes. It's fine to disagree with me, but I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether or not a lack of social mobility is actually a bad thing, as a Socratic baseline.