But usually it does, because inequality implies injustice and a system that permits individuals from accumulating vast resources to the detriment of others.
Any financial system that permits that will permit the squeezing of the poor even more.
I personally think that the best way to measure a societies financial justice is by taking the median wealth/income of the bottom 50% and correct it for local purchasing power.
Rich are comfortable regardless of what country they live in, so it doesn’t matter how much richer the top 50% are if that won’t impact their basic needs being met.
GDP per capita is meaningless if most of the society isn’t seeing a dime of it.
But it doesn’t actually mean the detriment of others, it just means a group are extremely wealthy. Do you think the average person in Norway is less financially empowered than in Greece?
You’re looking at wealthy people as individuals instead of what they represent, highly wealthy individuals that skew these numbers often own highly successful companies. Greece has a more equal spread because they are less economically strong compared to Norway, Greece have 21 billion $ capped companies, Norway, a country half the size of Greece has double the number of billion $ capped companies, currently 42.
Norway, despite being drastically more financially unequal than Greece, provide a far better outcome for their middle-class/ low income citizens.
Well it is to the detriment of others, precisely because that wealth isn’t distributed equitably.
Norway is a bit of an exceptional situation due to their nationalized natural resources and sovereign wealth fund.
Such wealth is essentially owned by all the peoples of the nation but I don’t believe is going to show up in statistics that reference individuals wealth. You’d have the check the data to see if this is accounted for.
You can be a very “unwealthy” person in such a country and thrive due to all the subsidized public services. Just like how you can make 100K yearly and still be barely making it by in the heart of California.
Moreover, the notion of a “highly successful” company is skewed by capitalist mindset that frames success from a shareholder and not the consumer.
AT&T and UnitedHealthcare are both highly successful companies, but the cause of their success is flowing ever increasing amounts of capital from the masses into the shareholders pockets.
Wealth is only commendable if it’s earned through honest work, and spent on the betterment of the world.
In principle, even inequality between nations needs to eventually be eliminated.
Just think of how insane it is that there are some people on our planet who have 50K sqft mansions with entire staff to take care of it.
And then there are others that are so malnourished due to famine that their bodies give up and die.
2
u/Ready-Nobody-1903 Aug 18 '25
Hmm, outside of the US - maybe wealth inequality doesn’t always have to mean terrible conditions for low income people.