That part doesn't even make any logical sense because there is nothing in economics that requires growing inequality. It's usually political power structures that need growing inequality. I would go one step further and say that growing inequality is bad for economic growth and has often ended in a revolution.
A lot of the things you mentioned only developed during the time when there was (or seemed to be) a compelling competing ideology.
Communism/socialism was seen as a potential alternative to capitalism during that time, and I think that the competition of ideas during that time led to more benefits for the lower end of the economic ladder.
Communism/socialism was seen as a potential alternative to capitalism during that time, and I think that the competition of ideas during that time led to more benefits for the lower end of the economic ladder.
Yes. I've made that point before, but it's not a mainstream position.
Many of the problems we have with capitalism come from capitalism being a monopoly, and acting like one.
Here's anti-communism PR from the 1949-1955 on the distribution of wealth. Back then, capitalism had to be sold in a competitive market.[1][2]
Also:
> The rich get really rich, and the poor get poorer by comparison. Unfortunately, this has always been true. It is not an artifact of modern economics.
This is not true as far as I know. There have been times in recent history between the early ~1900 and ~1970 where the income gap decreased and worker protection increased. It was a time of stronger worker movements, unions, emancipation and policy aimed at the larger demographics of the public. The 70's mark a shift towards neo-liberal ideology in the western world.
The article is riddled with dystopian suggestions. There are some things I can agree with. For example I very much agree with the importance of workplace transparency. And there is also an underlying tone of empathy with the unfortunate, but it comes off as patronizing.
I think the biggest fallacy is to think that our societies are becoming more meritocratic almost by default (as assessed in the article). Ignoring whether that is a good thing or not, I doubt this is true at all or if it even can be measured objectively.