We now have experts agreeing with us.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170706-theres-a-problem-with-the-way-we-define-inequality
https://archive.fo/EVvN9
>Solving inequality is often held up as a 'grand challenge' for the world.
>income disparity itself may not be the main problem.
>In a paper ... called 'Why people prefer unequal societies', researchers from Yale University argue that humans actually prefer living in a world in which inequality exists.
>Because if people find themselves in a situation where everyone is equal, studies suggest that many become angry or bitter if people who work hard aren't rewarded, or if slackers are over-rewarded.
>because there is so much inequality the assumption is that it must be unfair. But this has led to an incorrect focus on wealth inequality itself as the problem that needs addressing
>Mark Sheskin, a cognitive science post-doc at Yale, puts the findings of this research succinctly: "People typically prefer fair inequality to unfair equality".
>if [A society where no poverty] is equal-but-unfair then it risks collapsing, argues Nicholas Bloom, an economics professor at Stanford University.
>If I’m a painter, dentist or builder, why would I work for 50 hours a week if everything I’m given is free? humans actually think it’s unreasonable for people that skive to get rewarded. there is nothing that sends people mad more than lazy individuals getting the same rewards and promotions as the hard workers.
>Many of the researchers and economists interviewed for this piece agree: too much attention is paid to the fact that the 1%, and the super-rich all exist.
>Harry G Frankfurt is a professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University. In his book On Inequality, he argues that the moral obligation should be on eliminating poverty, not achieving equality, and striving to make sure everyone has the means to lead a good life.
Oh look, Academia needs a scientific paper and 30 years of research to realize the painfully obvious.
>>132899455
>studies suggest
why did we need studies to tell us this?
>>132899881
This.
>>132899881
But now when the left argues about it, we can give them papers. They cant argue with the results of science they live so much, can they?
>Retarded academics spend thousands of dollars to find out what conservatives always said was right and blatantly obvious
Color me shocked
>>132900229
That's why they attack science when it ventures into areas like this.
Don't be surprised when this guy has his credibility destroyed by the rest of academia because its "controversial"