The point about higher rents, education, health costs, etc, is a miscalculation of inflation. There's a difference between two things:
(1) the undesirability of a 1000x/2x split due to increased demand for the fixed supply of land and genius doctors, which means the 1000x/2x didn't properly account for inflation, and
(2) the fact that it'd be way cooler to have a properly-inflation-adjusted 990x/12x income split than 1000x/2x, among 50%/50% of the population.
On the other hand, Haiti and the Dominican Republic have equal populations and a 10x income difference, and I'm not shedding a single tear over it.
Yes. But both things hold, and will (2) is "nice to have", the (1) also actively declines quality of life and prospects for many people. But sure, they have better gadgets than in the 60s, so there's that.
>On the other hand, Haiti and the Dominican Republic have equal populations and a 10x income difference, and I'm not shedding a single tear over it.
And Mexico has a very unequal population (a few huge moguls and tons of poverty) and its quality of public infrastructure, infant mortality, and other metrics, US begins to descend to...
E.g.: "Using a combination of data from Blue Cross Blue Shield, the CDC, and prior health studies, the report predicts millennials will achieve the new triple threat of being sicker, broker, and dying younger than the previous generation, Gen X."
https://www.bcbs.com/sites/default/files/file-attachments/he...
And Switzerland is usually even richer GDP per capita and average wage than the US, and with much better infrastructure, service, and quality of life (e.g. it's much cleaner, less full of homeless people and crazes, rarer to get shot by a cop, and so on).
It's almost as if you can have more equality without Haitian results...
The "growing of the pie" is also a fairy tale though to mask the realities...
For one, the "growing pie" still manages to give some people not just most of the pie, but also to live the majority with smaller (in absolute size) slices than before -- stagnant inflation adjusted wages for decades, higher rents and houses, higher education costs, higher health costs, etc.
Second, even if the "larges slices to the average person compared to before" was true, we shouldn't accept a minority to hoard increasingly more of the growing pie. For one, because money is power, so those elites would have increasingly more power over the rest damaging democracy. Second, because people should be compensated (for increased productivity etc) relatively to the size of the pie, not just larger than before.
If an economy was scaled at 10 and now is scaled at 1000 (units of money), then it's not enough that those making 0.0001 now make 0.0002. Doesn't have to be equally distributed to all, but people in such a society should make closer to (1000/10)x not just 2x.
Wealth in society is relative like that, not mere absolute. I don't think those proposing otherwise would be happy to be paid 2x what a peasant made in 1700 (inflation adjusted of course), just because it's "more". They expect their compensation to raise in accordance with the wealth level of their society and relatively to the size of the pie, not merely as a larger slice than some past in absolute terms.