Sal Paradise wrote:
There is no upper limit - as humans are natural instinct is to look after ourselves and I would suggest to 99.9% of people providing sufficiently for themselves is their primary consideration. Most of those who spout empathy - and I include you - do so from a position of comfort...
So, you cannot answer the question?
You're the one stating that anyone who dares to empathise with others and even mention fairness should not do so once earning a certain amount of money.
This 'argument' has previously been shown (not by me) to be crass: to follow your logic, only a slave would oppose slavery, was an example that was given.
Yet you persist and, since you've repeatedly suggested this, you must have thought out what that rate would be.
Incidentally: I am quite comfortable now. It has not been the case for the bulk of my working life – as mentioned before, the copper jar was essential not that many years ago. No holidays, no trips out etc etc – and that was while working.
I'd be interested to know just why you'd expect anyone to suddenly only interested in themselves when their own lives improve. But then again, you can't even put a figure to your own pet theory that a concern for fairness should cease on reaching a certain pay level.
I equally doubt that you know the pay levels of anyone on here who you would assert should stop being concerned about fairness, thus rather rendering your comments insubstantial at best.
Sal Paradise wrote:
No one has provided any evidence that society is better of if the income gap is smaller - and again I include you...
I know that I have mentioned
The Spirit Level more than once on here, so either you've missed it, forgotten it or decided to ignore it.
Feel free to refute the work that Wilkinson and Pickett did – using evidence – but stop trying to pretend that such evidence does not exist.