Wealth Distribution in the USA

...accompanied by a considerable drop in crime.Let's all move to Iceland!

Well, in Iceland there doesn't seem to be any obvious detrimental effect of having a flat equality curve.
(Actually, it is not quite flat, but it is the best example I can think of that has almost managed to achieve what you are asking about.)What type of consequences were you thinking about?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It seems not.
Iceland's economy - like any economy - goes through changes.Unfortunately, there is not much data about wealth distribution in Iceland pre-2004.
But since 2004, Iceland's wealth distribution curve has flattened further still - but with no signs of a drop in the standard of living.There seems to be no detrimental consequences to being in a 'flat wealth distribution curve' country.

well, if it is anything like the Borg-Warner Trophy, then it is worth over $1,000,000 !! But it doesn't have less financial value, does it.
We are talking about 'wealth' redistribution, not 'pride' redistribution. I look at my family and I see something to be proud of.
I look at my friends and I see something to be proud of.I look at my hard-earned 'wealth' and I see nothing to be proud of.
It's just money.

I remember when the UK's minimum wage was being proposed; businesses cried foul, saying that it would cause unemployment to zoom straight up.
But it turned out that they were just greedy bastards, desperately clinging to their gold.
Unemployment was unaffected.But it still took until 1998 before the UK put in a minimum wage.
Businesses will protest against anything that (on the face of it) will reduce profits.
They also seem to forget that if an employee is paid more: they will spend more.

I've asked that same question to many people, and no-one has an answer.In the UK we privatised our railways because they were costing the government too much money.But if a private company can make it profitable, why can't the government?
If the answer to that is "Government departments are useless" then surely the solution is to fix the government departments.As it is, the government now subsidises the companies that run the railways!Before privatisation, any income was spent on running costs.
After privatisation, any income is spent on running costs AND shareholders.
Unsurprisingly, that didn't lead to lower fares.But, this is probably off-topic.
Rant over.

Which reminds me of this:
I think too far off-topic for discussion - but fun and almost relevant to this thread.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

How do employers decide if they are willing to pay a particular wage?

My question appears to have been unclear. Sorry.
How did they decide if they were willing to pay any wage at all? (i.e. decide to recruit someone at a wage greater than zero.)Imaginary Example:
Imagine there was a business that had an office with 5 desks and that was all the office could hold.
But they had enough work for 6 people.
Would they just decide to employ a 6th person?
And how would they make that decision?Real Example:
My company needs a very specific skill set to help run and develop their system.
There are only about 5 people in the world that have that skill set.
It would be very useful if the company had 2 people with that skill - it would halve development time, bringing all the benefits of a fast release turnaround, etc.But to hire someone with that skill set would cost somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000.
That is the market rate.So - why do you think we haven't hired someone?
It would definitely be advantageous to have another developer.
And we know the market rate.How do you think we decided that we were not willing to pay that particular wage?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

As I said, their wage was considered to be the current market rate of 100-200k. Yes, we estimated the economic benefit of that additional employee.But you said that was not possible.
So, maybe I am misunderstanding you.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I would want their other overheads to be included with their wage - but it seems ok as an example. *nods*
Seems reasonable. My salary is linked to inflation, but I only get the increase once a year - despite inflation constantly changing. But it is that employee contributing $5,000,000 to the company's bottom line.
And you could show that it is, by sacking the employee and watching the $5,000,000 disappear. Sure - it's a really big number, but the numbers are fictional.
I see nothing wrong with it, in principle.Why do you think it is ridiculous?