When wealth inequity is huge, it causes social instability and eventually, revolution.
It's generally not poor people who revolt, it's the middle class. Especially if there has been an event which created a newly disenfranchised middle class. If the middle class is doing ok, there's little to worry about. If they feel they are getting shafted... that's when potential trouble starts brewing.
Actual levels of wealth and disenfranchisement have little to do with social stability as it relates to wealth. It's all relative perception.
Wealth inequality is not the only thing that can lead to social instability. Angry mobs have formed and engaged in violence over many issues - interracial sexual relationships in the US (historically) and conversion from Islam in Afghanistan are two such examples.
If one advocates against wealth inequality on the grounds that angry mobs might engage in violence if inequality were too large, shouldn't one also advocate against X whenever there is a significant risk of violence by mobs?
If policy should cater to angry mobs threatening violence on issues of wealth inequality, should policy cater to angry mobs on issues of racial hatred or religious conflict as well?
I would argue that economic instability was a strong contributor to the racial and religious violence you describe. It's easier to tune out intolerance when you're secure in your station.
Southern white men were not secure in their station during the 50's and earlier?
Regardless, you are ducking the meta question. Is "a mob might become violent if we don't do X" a good argument for doing X? I.e., if angry racist mobs start rioting over a black president, should we impeach Obama? Should we engage in appeasement, paying each racist $500 to go home (perhaps levying a tax on blacks to pay for it)? Similarly, should we ban criticism of Christianity if Christians form lynch mobs of their own?
Are you sure? What if the middle class is doing okay AND there is large wealth inequity?
The United States doesn't exactly resemble historically tumultuous places where there is widespread abject poverty and a few wealthy nobles.
I can't think of any society where most people had A/C, cable TV, two cars, and a college education that revolted because some people had a bigger house, a bigger TV, a more expensive set of cars, and a slightly better education.
Interestingly, to the extent that there is social unrest in the United States today, it is a revolt against the would-be equalizers and the centralization of power.
I don't know. I'm not making any predictions, that's just an observation of past revolutions. The USA seems to be in a unique position right now, so who knows what will happen?
When wealth inequity is huge, it causes social instability and eventually, revolution.
Interesting. That sounds like it's a problem with poor people being angry and violent, not with income inequality per se.
It seems like spending money on the military and law enforcement would be a better investment than reducing income inequality under your scenario. And it makes sense, too--if people threaten violence, and you can afford to beat them, why pay tribute instead? It's not barbaric, but it does mean letting barbarians rule your society.
You misread my post. The poor are easily dealt with. Problems occur when the middle class starts to view themselves as the victim of economic inequality. This is why perception can matter as much as economic reality.
It's generally not poor people who revolt, it's the middle class. Especially if there has been an event which created a newly disenfranchised middle class. If the middle class is doing ok, there's little to worry about. If they feel they are getting shafted... that's when potential trouble starts brewing.
Actual levels of wealth and disenfranchisement have little to do with social stability as it relates to wealth. It's all relative perception.