It may be easy to sit on top of the busily productive pile and insinuate that those on the bottom be satisfied with the scraps ("...those at the bottom get bigger scraps than they otherwise would have", etc.). But it's much more palatable and interesting for me to seek out how to remedy injustices (as I perceive them, I can't claim to be objective about this), to "quantum tunnel" out of this extreme gravitational well of inequality, so to speak.
The point is, everyone wants to charge forward without thinking about what are the solutions that will really work. This is a problem of economics and politics. The more that this problem can be solved by best economic evidence and theory (apolitical), the better. A solution based purely on politics gets progressively worse, all the way down to the level or torches and pitchforks.
I listed a few economic issues I see (as a lay person) that if answered could start thinking towards something that ends well. Shall we consider those, or shall we head to straight to the pitchforks?
At the end of the day, because I and the other not-ultra-wealthy want that money the ultra-wealth are capturing to be more equitably distributed.
The system didn't just end up this way as a quirk of chance--the ultra-wealthy have used their money to influence laws to arrange everything this way. They didn't need a reason to make it this way, except they wanted more.
Why even say "why should we be looking for solutions" as though that's what any of this is about?
It means nothing to say "this is wrong damn it" without thinking about how it can be fixed.
Please see my response to sooheon.
Sooner or later.
1) There might be a way to have higher productivity than we have now. This can't be why, it's always a goal regardless right?
2) Strategies should be considered than intentionally reduce productivity and/economic growth in order to increase worker compensation. Now things get tricky - productivity helps everyone, it makes the things we buy cheap, it boosts our standard of living. Is such a strategy even feasible?
3) There might exist some kind of goldilocks plan whereby growth and productivity are not affected, yet average compensation grows substantially. Again, kind of gets into uncharted economic waters no?
4) It wouldn't be about economics. It's just about fairness, morality, and maybe the self-interested prevention of civil unrest. It's policy not to change economics, but to change politics, who gets what, move things around, etc.
I don't doubt there are some all around good win-win ideas that could be implemented, but as a category it doesn't seem full enough to be game changing.