[mycentstoo]

I think Americans workers are willing to tolerate conditions of exorbitant wealth disparity for at least two reasons.

First, because Americans believe someday that they will be wealthy and they do not want to eliminate their chance to join the club[a]. In my opinion, this is the most satisfying explanation. Workers do not want to remove that ladder to the upper class because in doing so, they place a hard cap on their expected outcomes.

Second, American political culture is derivative of a property-rights focused political philosophy. One of the biggest influences on the Bill of Rights and it's explicit protection of property rights was John Locke's Two Treatises of Government. John Locke argues that a defining purpose of government is in the protection of property (life, liberty and property). Americans therefore, view wealth as at least in some part meritocratic and rich, having earned their extra property, are wary of retracting that property. The importance of protecting what's "theirs" is politically, socially and legally baked-in to society.

If Americans' belief in their own prosperity suffer and/or the relative importance of property diminishes in light of other rights (health care, equality, etc.), I think then we might begin to see changes for high-wealth compensation. But, I would argue as long as each of these remain strong, we aren't likely to see any changes.

a. https://www.magnifymoney.com/news/wealthy-survey/, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/31/44percent-of-americans-think...

[DoreenMichele]

I think Americans workers are willing to tolerate conditions of exorbitant wealth disparity for at least two reasons.

I think most likely most American workers feel pretty helpless, like pawns in a game they can't exercise control over. They likely do not think of themselves as tolerating wealth disparity. They most likely think of themselves as enduring something they simply can't fix.

[andsoitis]

While most Americas say there is too much economic inequality in the US, there are other issues that they are much more concerned about:

1. Making health care more affordable

2. Dealing with terrorism

3. Reducing gun violence

4. Addressing climate change

5. Reducing income inequality

6. Reducing illegal immigration

And #6 is quite telling in the context of income inequality.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/most-am...

[paulddraper]

Or.......

Americans realize that any tool that can be used to remove wealth from the rich can be used wealth from themselves as well.

France recently had what, like a hundred days of continual protests over poor economic conditions? But yes, give politicians more power to fight the fat cats. That'll work!

---

EDIT: Check my profile, I founded a healthcare billing company. You know who supported the Affordable Care Act the most? Insurance companies. [1]

[1] https://publicintegrity.org/health/insurers-backed-obamacare...

[lockhouse]

This! Every time I hear about a new tax for the rich, somehow the middle class end up actually paying it.

The rich have every tool in their arsenal to limit their tax liability. When you can afford the best accountants, lawyers, and politicians that money can buy, you can ensure that you will never have to pay your fair share. Oh, and even if a new law somehow does make their costs go up, they'll just pass it on to the middle class by raising the prices on whatever they sell to us to make money.

Unintended consequences are real.

[endisneigh]

It’s simpler than that - there is no economic system that both rewards and incentivizes productivity that wouldn’t result in stark wealth or income equality.

Consider a simple game of flipping coins would result in similar inequality despite it not being a game of skill at all.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...

Inequality is inevitable. Waste of time and energy discussing that. Rather we should discuss actual quality of life grievances (and to be fair these may be related to the inequalities).

[nerdponx]

There's also the weird and uncomfortable truth that substantial wealth accumulated all in one place is what keeps a significant amount of private business, arts, and craftsmen in business.

Who really needs a beautifully-curved hand-carved wood staircase? Nobody, but rich guys want them occasionally, so that's keeping a whole company and a couple of master craftsmen in business.

You could argue that this is just a misallocation of resources and that without said rich guys the same economic productivity would move elsewhere instead. But I'm not convinced that's equivalent, it's "mythical man-month" reasoning. $1 in 100 people's pockets is not the same as $100 in one pocket.

I'm not at all arguing that the money is deserved or that we shouldn't consider wealth redistribution policy. As you said, it comes back down to quality of life. When we talk about wealth inequality, it's important to realize that we're not trying to prevent people from making money and spending it on things other than groceries and gas, we're trying to prevent people from being materially poor, and mess with everything else as little as possible.

[s1artibartfast]

I often hear your first point repeated, but have never met a poor person that thought they were going to be a millionaire.

However, I think it is a biased caricature of a real phenomenon.

I think Most Americans don't want the government to put limitations on how successful they can be and put barriers in their way if they start being coming successful.

This is essentially the same idea with different framing

[nerdponx]

Part of the issue is that regulation tends to hurt small businesses more than big ones. So I think resistance to adding new rules is somewhat justified by the experience that adding new rules makes it primarily harder to run small business. Whether this is a matter of naivety in policymaking or anticompetitive regulatory capture is another issue.

[nitwit005]

There's just no coherent proposal to fix it.

Even the shareholders of some of these firms think the executives are robbing them with the compensation they've set (see ongoing Tesla lawsuits, for example). But, they can't come up with a clear rule for what "appropriate" pay is.

I suspect we'll hit a point where the pay is so excessive that it's worth buying companies purely to cut the pay of management, as it'll be the easiest way to improve profitability.