To echo what asgard1024 wrote: inequality is a problem if you are concerned with your own ability to make decisions for yourself. We see that today in our political system: money buys access, and concentrated wealth breeds concentrated power.
Envy and social status are not the primary reasons people fear inequality; instead, it is the fear that someone else has control over your destiny, and you are powerless to stop it. And this is what we see every day, even as entrepreneurs--regulatory capture by entrenched interests (and government corruption generally) prevents innovation and real competition, keeping too much wealth in the undeserving hands of those who have rigged the game in their own favor.
Furthermore, it is also quite possible that levels of inequality that we are seeing in the United States drag down economic growth, at least to the point that the material status of the poor is decreasing in absolute, objective terms. This makes perfect sense when you consider how important individual freedom is for broad economic growth--if economic inequality makes people less able to pursue their own objectives and best interests, all but the rich and politically connected will find themselves unable to contribute the best of themselves to society and to the markets.
It's entirely conjecture to attempt to assert that high levels of inequality are an inevitable result of sustained economic growth, and that high levels of inequality are necessary to sustain growth. However, it makes it very easy to hold conservative views in opposition to redistributive policies if you also believe that redistributive policies hurt growth--even when there is no actual evidence backing that belief.
Again, there is no evidence that redistributive policies as such harm growth. However, there may be evidence of a "goldilocks zone", an ideal level of inequality that spurs growth most effectively--where the opposite extremes of communism and the modern "gilded age"--and their well-documented drawbacks--are both avoided. To me this seems like common sense.
>fear that someone else has control over your destiny
That's true for people here. Most of society want "bread and circuses". Money is not the only motivator, so not inevitable to sustain growth. There is also problem with growth measurements e.g. Github improved my life by a lot, but contributed little to GDP.
Envy and social status are not the primary reasons people fear inequality; instead, it is the fear that someone else has control over your destiny, and you are powerless to stop it. And this is what we see every day, even as entrepreneurs--regulatory capture by entrenched interests (and government corruption generally) prevents innovation and real competition, keeping too much wealth in the undeserving hands of those who have rigged the game in their own favor.
Furthermore, it is also quite possible that levels of inequality that we are seeing in the United States drag down economic growth, at least to the point that the material status of the poor is decreasing in absolute, objective terms. This makes perfect sense when you consider how important individual freedom is for broad economic growth--if economic inequality makes people less able to pursue their own objectives and best interests, all but the rich and politically connected will find themselves unable to contribute the best of themselves to society and to the markets.
It's entirely conjecture to attempt to assert that high levels of inequality are an inevitable result of sustained economic growth, and that high levels of inequality are necessary to sustain growth. However, it makes it very easy to hold conservative views in opposition to redistributive policies if you also believe that redistributive policies hurt growth--even when there is no actual evidence backing that belief.
Again, there is no evidence that redistributive policies as such harm growth. However, there may be evidence of a "goldilocks zone", an ideal level of inequality that spurs growth most effectively--where the opposite extremes of communism and the modern "gilded age"--and their well-documented drawbacks--are both avoided. To me this seems like common sense.