[rab_oof]

Ethics are important, without a doubt, just orthogonal to how much more poor people are struggling.

If it's any sign, look at the homeless camps in Silicon Valley. People (outside tech) were never so broke as now, it's almost a 1920's pattern, to a limited degree. Janitors live in their cars in our parking lot because they can't afford housing. I wish they were paid more. :((

Eventually, we may need redistribution of wealth, voluntary or not, because people need at least enough food and shelter, and some path to self-sufficiency, if possible. I don't advocate rash direct wealth transfer but at first voluntary subsidization/underwriting of bare, minimal essentials (food (organic, fair trade fruits/vegetables/etc.[0]), housing, transport, education) adjusted to income.

(Santa Clara county General Assistance (GA) for singles is ~$150 USD/month and food stamps (CalFresh) is about the same... Seriously not enough to survive on but also not enough for people to hurt themselves with either.)

0: to avoid workers being sprayed with horrible chemicals and such. (Btw, in California, CRLA are cool folks.)

[rgbrenner]

Eventually, we may need redistribution of wealth, voluntary or not, because people need at least enough food and shelter, and some path to self-sufficiency, if possible.

And this is why at some level, a person is no longer entitled to additional wealth (even if it's earned honestly and fairly).

We know from history that when a small group of people control the vast majority of wealth, it creates an unstable system. So in order to maintain a stable government and economy, there must be some limits on wealth.

(and progressive taxes are one of the ways we control wealth, and prevent this instability.)