The issue is when others money means high costs for you, such as in healthcare or education or construction. A lot of stuff is really expensive in USA due to the high wages/profits and those workers not being any more productive, that directly hurts your quality of life unless you got an equivalent raise.
You mentioned healthcare, education, and construction. Those three all have very heavy government interference and regulation. It's unrealistic to blame those high prices on the free market.
Consider, on the other hand, the software industry. Essentially zero regulation. Yet the software, very high quality software, tends to be free!!!
Why is it that the most regulated, subsidized, and interfered with industries are the most expensive, while the least regulated, unsubsidized, free market industries are the most productive with the lowest prices?
> It's unrealistic to blame those high prices on the free market.
I didn't blame the free market, we talked about inequality nobody mentioned free market. That inequality is partially fueled by the unfree regulatory capture, things would be more equal if some regulations were removed.
No, it mean complaining about people having too much and people having too little. It might sound strange for you, but lots of people discuss economics/politics for a greater social good, not their own personal interest.
I think you got hung up on that specific. The bigger issue is that the US has a higher cost of living, and more workers struggle compared to other developed countries.
This is why I find the article confusing. At first, it paints a picture of the US as incredibly productive, which should mean that the average citizen's quality of life, and maybe even up to the 99th percentile, would be better than in other developed countries. But then it claims that the average quality of life in the US is actually worse (as in struggling workers and high cost of living).
So, I’m left wondering... Why do we care so much about the country’s productivity if it doesn’t improve the average person’s life? In fact, if it’s making things worse for the majority, what’s the point?
The only way I can make sense of this is by looking at the distribution of gains. The graph that would explain this would have extreme outliers at the very top, where all the productivity gains are concentrated. This isn’t just inequality in the typical sense of some people having more than others. It’s an extreme form of inequality where almost all the benefits go to the tail end, leaving the majority worse off despite the country’s overall productivity.
At least, that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. But at the same time, I don't just believe this, that's why I'm failing to reconcile the contradiction in the article. What's the conclusion you take from the article?
P.S.: I don’t mind other people being richer than me as long as it’s mutually beneficial, or if their wealth has no impact on me, good or bad. Most people likely feel the same. The problem arises when someone’s wealth comes at the expense of others. For example, Kings and Emperors in the past were resented because their wealth and power actively held others back and were built off the labor of the masses. On the other hand, I don’t mind someone like Bill Gates being wealthy because his success indirectly benefited me, I have a comfortable job in part because of the industry he helped create.
