Because "produce more" and "have more" aren't actually related. Have you produced more if you're born rich? Does Jeff Bezos actually produce billions?

It's a statement that doesn't actually represent reality.

Jeff Bezos improved global quality of life EXACTLY the amount he's been paid. Otherwise, why would anybody volunteer their money his way?

> Jeff Bezos improved global quality of life EXACTLY the amount he's been paid. Otherwise, why would anybody volunteer their money his way?

That's just the repetition a rather circular dogma: the market is assumed to be right (typically demonstrated by some oversimplified textbook example), so right is whatever our market does.

If you want to use Bezos's wealth to justify the value he's created, you should at least try to make an independent estimation of that value.

I don't agree with that assessment, but you also didn't address inheritance.

I think the downvotes are due to the fact that the article is unrelated to production. The article is about that inequality arises naturally even in simple economies where everything is fair.

Unless your socialist, most people agree that more productive people should earn more. I think most discussions today around inequality center around the top 0.001% where earnings and production seem unrelated. I am not of the following opinion, but some people take issue that one can "own" a corporation and your return be greater than any individual producer for that corporation for effectively doing nothing.