I have two points against this piece. The first in substance and the second in style.
> The real problem is poverty, not economic inequality.
This was in the footnote, and I will consider it, hopefully without creating a strawman, to be the boiled-down thesis.
Economic inequality and poverty are different problems, as PG noted, and both will never truly be solved barring dramatic and horrific solutions. But, the people I know, aren't talking about poverty. My friends, all of whom grew up in middle class life styles, aren't thinking about falling into poverty, which they consider to be the idea of barely making ends meet. They're thinking about why they can't afford to buy a house at age 30 like their parents did. Or why they have to put off having a kid until they're much older. Or why wages don't seem to give as much disposable income as they once did. Or why they're so in debt right after college, without a good job to speak for.
They're talking about the end of the middle class. And, while poverty swells from the middle class's withering, we can't just focus on its growth. It's like if you had three buildings. The first is tiny and barebones. The second is nicer and much larger. And the third is super glitzy but the smallest of all. Now imagine that neglect by the building owners has lit aflame the second building. Most people from the second building are now forced to overcrowd into the dilapidated first building.
People in the first building exclaim that we need more room. People in the third building close their blinds. The people in the second building are too proud to admit they have to stay in the first building.
Meanwhile, the second building turns to ash. And then the first and third buildings right next to the second start to catch on fire...
Metaphor aside, I believe the real problem is the withering of the middle class, i.e. where opportunity is most equal. It is the engine of our society and, in the economic view, probably what has made the West great.
While I do not know what set of specifics solution will work, I do know that, paraphrasing PG, the most important thing is to focus on the right problem.
Style:
> So when I hear people saying that economic inequality is bad and should be eliminated, I feel rather like a wild animal overhearing a conversation between hunters. But the thing that strikes me most about the conversations I overhear is how confused they are. They don't even seem clear whether they want to kill me or not.
This paragraph set a dubious tone, and made me seriously question the objectivity of this piece.
I completely believe that PG has heard of these conversations: as a high-net-worth person, he must have been accused of exploitation and other capitalist ills a thousand times over.
But by including this paragraph, the spectrum stretches from "reducing income inequality" to "ending income equality", which portends violence. Not metaphorical violence. Real violence. PG is studied in history, so his words about death strike me as not apart of a metaphor but a real, sincere worry.
There's fear here; fear seems to be slightly and subtly tinging the rest of the essay. I appreciate PG's methodical, calm, purposeful writing. But the tone of this one clouds the message of "treat the disease, not the symptom".
I agree with a lot of what is said later on, but I had to do outside research first, and then coming back once I was sure I wouldn't be learning a distorted point or view.
Normally PG's editors are great at refining his words: but out of all them, only one seems to be studied in Income Equality (Max Roser). The others are either apart of the same class or social cohort: which may very well be why the general consensus from his editors was that this piece should go out as we see it now.