In life, with economic systems, and other parts, also seen in games, there is something called "the rich getting richer".  In this, individuals who have an advantage, are able to compound this advantage and use the compounding effect to offset weaknesses.  This can lead to an exponential expansion of separation between those who have and those who have not.

My question is this: Is the "rich getting richer" effect a problem?   Is it healthy for a system to end up resulting in a few individuals on top with dominance, while many below who aren't as fortunate, and could end up falling further behind, as rather than compounding advantages witness a compounding of problems and a chain of events that could cause them to even suffer a shortness of life?

If it isn't health to allow this to be left unchecked, then what can be done that would be a way to balance things out more?

I wil say, often in games, where this happens, it is a problem that makes a game less fun to play.

not if you are rich

Well I guess rich people don't just sit on their money, and their spending will naturally create jobs, which is beneficial for society as a whole.

Or I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to economics and should get the hell out of this thread

It is said, in absolute terms, the human race is getting richer.  In relative terms though, there is the compounding effect I talk about here happening, where the well off have advantages that compound.  It is this compounding effect I ask about.

But, there is also talk of generations being worse off than their parents.  We are very likely looking at in America at least, that generations are financially worse off than their parents.  They start life with much larger debt, to even be able to compete in area where they can get ahead, due to student loan debt, and have less net worth.  So, it could be also in absolute terms.  I know I am worse off, very likely FAR worse off than my parents, eventhough I have an advanced degree.  I also have the debt to go with it.  I personally am compounding the wrong way here.

I'm hard pressed to think of many ways in which radical wealth stratification is healthy in the long term, historically or even theoretically.

what you said is true and why we do in fact need rich people (or some entity with wealth).  a "everyone is exactly equal" society simply would not work as we need some driving force to create investment and all the good things that come with it.

however, monopolies are equally as bad.  too few people/ideas at the top and the need to be competitive, honest, intelligent is removed and leads to corruption or complacency.  

as The1 said, we need balance.  we need the rich but we also need them to be in check.  now what that exactly means ... fuck if i know.

torpid

You either have to much time on your hand or you just like posting redundant questions on the internet. You know the answer.

Depends on how they're getting rich.

If they're doing it via the markets, it's a great thing. If they're doing it via crony capitalism, it's a bad thing.

Here's the thing. I haven't done EXTENSIVE research on it, but the little research I've done has lead me to a fairly big conclusion.

"The rich only get richer when the economy is expanding."

It's worth noting, that although to the average person the whole "Top 1%" or whatever you want to call it look pretty static it actually varies WIDELY."

I'd cite 2008 where the gini coefficient actually SHRUNK during the crisis.

The rich primarily get richer by "outrunning" not "stealing".

So it doesn't really seem like an issue.

Honestly, the Rich haven't even been getting much richer recently to be honest. While the Gini Coefficent has rised since the 90's. It's risen for income of households, but NOT income of individuals.

What's created the great increase in wealth lately has mostly been an increasing trend for money to marry money. Not a real compound interest effect. Once women get "full" representation in the workforce at proper levels, the Gini coefficient likely may stabilize.