In the situation I described there was no effort by anyone to make any of the alternative approaches look better or worse. Did you ever notice that in any field you might care to look at a small percentage of the people seem to end up outperforming the rest? In the arts, in sports (i.e. in ritualised warfare because that's what sports come down to), in the sciences, anywhere. One of the names this phenomenon is known under is the Pareto distribution (look it up or look at [1] for it application to wealth distribution).
Avoiding inequality invariably implies taking from some to distribute to others. When done so voluntarily by the givers to takers who are really in need this is a good thing. When done so by forcibly taking from some to distribute to others who are not in need but have come to rely on handouts because they've always been available so there has never been an incentive to provide for oneself this is a net-negative for all involved and a burden on society.
Wealth inequality will always exist and there's nothing wrong with that, it gives an incentive to dig that pit to trap the aurochs instead of always having to live on roasted rat. Excessive wealth inequality - where nobody but Gnurgh's descendents are allowed to trap aurochs because "the forest and all the animals in it are theirs" is another and certainly not inescapable story. Recognising the difference between "wealth inequality is a natural phenomenon which gives individuals incentives to work towards raising their own standards" and either "it is inescapable that nearly all resources end up in the hands of the 'elite' or 'nobility'" or "all wealth inequality is bad and resources should always be divided equally among everybody (i.e. "equity" or "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity") is where we seem to differ.
I don't think many people have a problem with the kind of income inequality you describe. Natural inequality does not produce the level of inequality we are seeing today. This is the result of Gnurgh and his friends setting up rules that enable them to take a rat from Oogrl each day, lock Borrr in a cave and let their children inherit their position.
Yes, that is what I point out. Inequality is a fact of life and the natural level of inequality is what drives people to outdo themselves so as to become 'more equal than others' but inequality does not automatically equate to resource concentration in the hands of a few while the rest starve. The cited study does not much more than indicate that government structure has a deciding effect on wealth distribution. It does not in any way indicate that forced redistribution - Borrr and friends taking Gnurgh's beef jerky and half of Oogrl's rats - or elite rule - Gnurgh employing Oogrl to force Borrr to slave in the mines while Gnurgh takes all the profits - is better or worse, just that societies can be formed in both those ways as well as in ways which more resemble what is probably the best way: Oogrl can hunt his rats, Gnurgh can make his jerky but Borrr is kept from stealing and raping cave girls. If Oogrl wants some jerky he can either try to set up a business in roasted rats so that Gnurgh, tired of beef for breakfast/lunch/dinner can swap some or try to make some for himself.
The alternative chosen by Borrr is worse. The ones chosen by Ooglr and Gnurgh are examples of two types of work-leisure balances, neither of which are 'better' or 'worse'. Sometimes you don't need lengthy discussions or focus groups or studies to decide a given alternative - in this case stealing and raping - is worse.
The article which started this discussion is rather pointless, all it shows is that governments can influence wealth distribution. This was clear from the get-go, no study needed. The position taken - that inequality is not inevitable - is also meaningless since it does not provide any idea on whether the alternative to inequality is beneficial over 'natural' inequality. If you know the song 'The Trees' by the Canadian band Rush you might understand what I mean, if not I'll provide an excerpt from the lyrics which shows an example of a form of equality which is worse for all involved except those enforcing the equality:
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
“The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light”
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw
Who wins? Those wielding the hatchet, axe and saw. Who loses? The trees, i.e. the constituents.
That does not make sense as I'm not describing any way to structure society here, instead I'm describing individual choices within any given society. Some of those choices won't be available in some types of society - e.g. Gnurgh won't be welcome in proto-North-Korea - but that is besides the point. I'm pointing out that people make choices and those choices have consequences. Ooglr will end up 'wealthy' when it comes to free time, Gnurgh ends up wealthy when it comes to food and family, Borrr could end up wealthy as well depending on his prowess in raiding those drying racks but he won't be welcomed by the others.
Avoiding inequality invariably implies taking from some to distribute to others. When done so voluntarily by the givers to takers who are really in need this is a good thing. When done so by forcibly taking from some to distribute to others who are not in need but have come to rely on handouts because they've always been available so there has never been an incentive to provide for oneself this is a net-negative for all involved and a burden on society.
Wealth inequality will always exist and there's nothing wrong with that, it gives an incentive to dig that pit to trap the aurochs instead of always having to live on roasted rat. Excessive wealth inequality - where nobody but Gnurgh's descendents are allowed to trap aurochs because "the forest and all the animals in it are theirs" is another and certainly not inescapable story. Recognising the difference between "wealth inequality is a natural phenomenon which gives individuals incentives to work towards raising their own standards" and either "it is inescapable that nearly all resources end up in the hands of the 'elite' or 'nobility'" or "all wealth inequality is bad and resources should always be divided equally among everybody (i.e. "equity" or "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity") is where we seem to differ.
[1] https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/L...