Economic inequality is never positive when it is being used against you.
Economic inequality is a society phenomenon and has to be addressed in a macroscopic way. Rest assured I am at the worse end of it, but this is not enough to explain it "should be eliminated". I mean, are you sure that there are no negative consequences to those seem to be
worse off? Taking off the inequality doesn't necessarily mean everyone get back to the mean. Instead, the mean itself may have risen or fallen. I don't have a conclusive deduction on this, but you have, so I think you have to justify it.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt this is true, since even in nature, we get examples of this not happening, such as the synergistic relationship between bees and flowers.
Those are "exceptions" or "specialties". Furthermore this doesn't conflict with the fact that bee hives compete each other. And if you are saying "this synergy is possible in human society", while I also agree with this, it still doesn't conflict with the fact that there will always be people who desire and
manage to get "more / less than they 'deserve'", which means inequality will always exist. Or do you believe that every human being can be (educated to be) contributing to this synergy willfully?
Pants-of-dog wrote:...which has nothing to do with the claim that societies need economic inequality in order to maintain a decent standard of living.
Aren't we discussing "productivity / impact" instead of "decent standard of living"? The latter is rather easy to maintain on a small scale, if you insist.
And how do you define "decent standard of living" (some may count spiritual standards / freedom / fairness as well, and Cuba seems not agreeing that some of these are important)? And if defined, is it sustainable without some kind of economic inequality exists?