6 ms·

Seems like an extremely reductive view to take: you can't use time and family to buy food. Gender roles aren't so cut and dry any more. Given that, maybe outco

• tomp 8y ago
  > you can't use time and family to buy food. Yes, but you also don't need millions. Any measures of pay inequality will be skewed by extreme outcomes (as the distribution is floored), so people who decide they earn enough and prioritize time/family over further career progress will appear in statistics as "inequality" (edit: even though it's actually good that our society is so wealthy and productive that some people can afford to do that).
  • ghostwriter 8y ago
    > so people who decide they earn enough and prioritize time/family over further career progress will appear in statistics as "inequality" It's even worse than that. According to the same statistics, a person who bought a ticket for their favourite band's performance last night is worse off than a day before, whereas their favourite band are better off. In fact, the statistics would show that inequality increased dramatically last night, the band was famous and there were 10k+ people giving away their money, whereas - let's say, five - random guys got "significantly richer" at the same time. The value of the emotional uplifting and sense of life after the gig? Nah, not an asset to rely upon in "strict" statistics.