I’m unconvinced that inequality matters. A better set of questions would be one like: how much does your parents (lack of) success predict your own? How likely are you to attain some arbitrary yet desirable standard of living, etc. Inequality is related to these things but doesn’t necessarily block them.
Outcome should still be proportional to effort and skill however. There are many top-heavy systems where the top benefits far more than the middle even though the middle is close to as good. Consider sporting events where the second place receives 1/3 of the price of the winner, even if it was a very close finals. Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings.
It seems to me that this is an unsolvable or at least a very hard problem. Ask 10 people about what they think the correct and fair compensation is and you’ll get 10 opinions. It is difficult to quantify effort and skill. If a very talented person produces better results - with less effort - than someone less talented but very hard working, who gets compensated more? These are tough questions to answer.
> Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings.
I am curious about these sporting events. Please help me understand them better.