All of the discussion about inequality enables people to ignore real issues of poverty. There can be a lot of inequality and no poverty, at least in principle. If so, what of it? But, more realistically, there can be very little inequality and massive, ubiquitous poverty. Is this what the "inequality" crowd really wants -- everyone to be "equally" poor?
Sometimes you wonder.
The usual policy proposal from the "inequality" crowd is to raise taxes and give money to bureaucrats and allow for no accountability for the funds so dispensed. What will that do?
It certainly won't eliminate poverty.
In fact, that doesn't even seem to be the point. The point seems to be to "get even." Bureaucrats, and here I include most employees in the educational establishment, want more money. That is their number one thing. They resent the incomes made possible by people in other professions and they want theirs. Eliminating poverty is never the point. In fact, their proposals usually logically imply more poverty and, in particular, more long-lasting poverty.
They are okay with that.
So long as bureaucrats gain relative to the one-percenters. But, of course, many of the bureaucrats are one-percenters. So the plan is to catch up with the other, wealthier one-percenters.
This is all about envy by bureaucrats. The inequality game has nothing to do with helping poor people improve their standard of living.
That's why the inequality crowd is not concerned that their proposals reduce economic growth, limit opportunities in the poorest neighborhoods and enrich bureaucrats and eliminate accountability for the spending of public money.
The reality of the plight of the poor is not something that is of any real interest to the inequality crowd. Their focus is elsewhere.