It's rather about: is everyone getting richer ? And the answer is clearly yes. Even the poorer people are getting a bit more than before and can afford a better life than their parents. There is a clear progress in all strats of society. That's what abundance mean: it's not about who gets the biggest share of the cake, it's the fact that cake is growing and everyone gets more cake than before.
That the rich get richer faster and hoard more and more wealth while others fine their wealth decreasing over time is inequality.
> And it's not necessarily a problem, because even the super rich can't spend all of what they earn, and that money ends up being recycled in the economy (investment, etc..).
This is the trickle down theory, which is not true in any way whatsoever. Wealth does not get reinvested or redistributed in a way that reduces wealth disparity.
> It's rather about: is everyone getting richer ? And the answer is clearly yes.
This is demonstrably false. Don't confuse the availability of consumer goods with wealth. In the US, for example, actual wealth for low and middle class people/families has been declining for the last 30 years or so.
> Even the poorer people are getting a bit more than before and can afford a better life than their parents.
This is not true either. Homelessness, poverty, and unemployment rates are measured and we know that there is no long term downward trend for these things even as wealth disparity gets worse.
> That's what abundance mean: it's not about who gets the biggest share of the cake, it's the fact that cake is growing and everyone gets more cake than before.
Tell that to the people that are homeless or go hungry every day.
http://finallygoodnews.net/2013/06/20/half-way-there-world-w...
and the original article
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill...
However, this change doesn't make any statements about increasing equality for different economic classes nor does it talk about sustainability of a lowering extreme poverty rate. It also doesn't talk about various aspects about living just above that extreme poverty line or the challenge facing those people not living in places like China that have seen a big economic boom and are not likely to.
You can drain a lake for thing X until your lake runs dry. Who is least susceptible to change? Those with money . Either they move or they buy water).
The high Gini coefficient correlates and probably causes so many bad effects it shouldn't be ignored. It's not the one and only measure, and there are other important measures but it is a very good predictor of social unrest.
And wealth is not a Lake. It does not run dry. You can create wealth. If wealth could not be created we would be super poor by now with 7 billion people on the planet compared to 100 years ago. But it's the exact opposite, we are hundred time richer than 100 years ago.
When everyone earns a little more than before over time, there's not so much cause for social unrest. Countries with growing economies tend to be more stable and peaceful Revolutions occur when people get poorer and lose hope for a better future.
I never said it is a like a lake. I meant an actual lake. Lake was example how inequalities lead to richest people making policies that don't impact them. That is the biggest threat income inequality may present to any society.
Money is like gravity/mass. The more money you have the more money you attract. You may create wealth, but if you don't distribute it, some points may gather too much like their matter counterparts, turn into a black holes and consume the reality around them. It's like that man that asked Ford "If you don't give money to your workers, who's gonna buy your cars?"
> Countries with growing economies tend to be more stable and peaceful Revolutions occur when people get poorer and lose hope for a better future.
Wait, what about Brazil and Turkey? Aren't they growing economies? Why are their in state of unrest?
And my earlier point on famine was that it was a much bigger problem for heavy agricultural societies in centuries past than it was for tribal societies; a bad harvest one year for a civilization could have disastrous effects, while a tribe could generally pack up and move.
And finally, while I agree that the future is abundance, I'm not convinced it's going to be abundance for everyone. Up to this point, wealth in every single civilization I can think of has been heavily stratified, with the top few percent taking the majority of everything (doesn't matter if its nobles, priests, corporate leaders or politicians). I don't really see this changing given our current political/cultural/economic systems, unless basic income becomes a thing (and even then, the stratification will remain; it'll just become irrelevant on a long enough scale of technological improvement).