On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Well, that demands a lot more space than is reasonable here. Look at
the work of Wilkinson, Pickett, Stiglitz. The correlations between
income, and especially wealth, inequality are strong and extend to
virtually every social ill. (And it is seen over solid data extending
back over 250 years.)

At this point, I was going to reply that a correlation, without a causative
mechanism, tends to be viewed as unsatisfying. But I see this was addressed.

And there is a growing body of work by social
scientists and economists explaining the causative factors. And it
isn't being poor. Social problems are far more severe in rich nations
with large inequality than in poor ones that are more egalitarian.

In the end, it probably comes down to our sense of fairness, and our
sense of common identity. When disparities grow too large, we end up
with class struggles and a society with subcultures where there is no
common identity.

Here, though, I would suggest that cause and effect are reversed.

A country like Sweden can have a very robust social safety net, because, until
quite recently, just about everyone there was a Swede. There wasn't some large
group of people in the country who were despised for being lazy, for not having
paid attention in school, and expecting the same rewards as those who are
diligent.

People will share with their brothers, but not with foreigners.

And thus the contention of Libertarians that the Right and the Left are both the
same thing, since both lead the way to more government control... among many
other things. People have an idea of fairness that includes equality - but it
also includes equality of effort. When you have diversity in a society, things
break down.

John Savard