> decreases in class mobility and increased concentration of social power

> The parent comment seems to focus on the latter

Okay but it's still not a very good argument. Like really? That's when you literally had to be _born_ noble, like your blood ancestry. That's why a bunch of people died in the French revolution, Russian revolution, etc

The Gilded Age, the stereotypical example of a time with high inequality (which we have, in fact, now surpassed by any reasonable measure) was in the 19th century in the USA.

We had no hereditary nobility (not in name, anyway). The robber barons were all (to the best of my knowledge) "new money"—their families made their fortunes right here in America by getting in on the ground floor of brand-new industries (very much in the same way that startup founders are trying to do today) as the Industrial Revolution was ramping up...and then becoming monopolists and extracting all the money they could (very much in the same way that startup founders are trying to do today).

You may need to review your history.

I don't think "class mobility" is a thing that we have to have. I don't think its a problem that needs fixing.

I also don't think its a problem that there is a big gap between rich and poor.

I _do_ think we need to make sure that our governments are well funded, and that it can afford to feed, house, and make safe all of its people, no matter how disabled, unlucky, or lazy.

I also think we need to have protections in place so that the wealthy can't use rent seeking behavior to feed on those with less money.

> I don't think "class mobility" is a thing that we have to have. I don't think its a problem that needs fixing.

Really? If there were zero class mobility, that would mean that no matter how hard someone works, no matter how good their business ideas are, they'll never become more wealthy than their parents were when they were born (at least, compared to someone who sat around doing nothing). And it would mean that no matter how inefficiently or stupidly a rich person blows their money, they'll never become less wealthy than they already are. Bloodline would become a better predictor or wealth and status than luck, charisma, investment opportunities, or hard work.

Even if we lived in a world where even there poorest of the poor were provided for, I wouldn't be okay with zero class mobility. It would basically be acceptance of inherited birthright privilege.

When I hear class mobility, I think moving categories, not moving up and down in your own category.

I believe strongly that people need to be rewarded for getting out of bed in the morning and doing something productive. I fear the UBI because I think its human nature to choose to do nothing. I think people who claim people will still work on a UBI are kidding themselves.

So in context, I believe it's important that everybody's material wealth is going up. We don't need laws that somehow make it easier for you to go from nothing to a billion dollars somehow.

The evidence people do not prefer to be lazy. UBI studies show this too. Where is your evidence?