Corporate executives dominate state and local politics. They don't care about inequality. They want more housing for their current and planned workers. They want El Camino Real transformed for their benefit - traffic consequences be darned. It is called the GRAND BOULEVARD INTIATIVE. Ask Russell Hancock about it. It is all about da money.

If I make $50k and you make $60k, your're doing better than I am, and there's an income inequality of $10k.

If we both double our incomes through increased demand for our skills, improving our skills, etc. I make $100k and you make $120k.

We're both doing better than we were before. But now the income inequality doubled from $10k to $20k.

Is an increase in income inequality always indicative of some kind of increase in unfairness?

The local and state regulations inhibit development. That is all.

"Is an increase in income inequality always indicative of some kind of increase in unfairness?"

Ummm, did you read the attached article?

....with 13% of the households holding more than 75% of the region's wealth.

Dear All, I strongly suggest a read of Don Watkins and Yaron Brook's excellent book Equal is Unfair. Rising income inequality is a common narrative from the left but the same people who raise the minimum wage hurt the ones they claim to help. Look at the local MTV Walmart after min wage rise. More do it yourself scanners and less cashiers. Forced equality will not achieve success.

In response to Resident who said:

“If I make $50k and you make $60k, your're doing better than I am, and there's an income inequality of $10k.”

That is exactly correct where the work being done is similar, your productivity is similar, and that there is a stable need for your services. You said:

“If we both double our incomes through increased demand for our skills, improving our skills, etc. I make $100k and you make $120k.”

If all things are identical from above, there is a disparity occurring. There has always been either intentional pay discrimination or unintentional, either are to be prevented. I have a Business Degree in Human Resources, and there is very little effort done to address these problems.

The real discussion that should be in play here is whether anyone who works either 2 20h hour jobs or a 40 hour job per week can afford to have a roof over their head, a reasonable quality of life and a set aside for emergencies.

That does mean that there is good cause for a “minimum wage”

But the challenge is that customers allow businesses to remove customer services and do not penalize the stores that reduce that service. The customers should take actions to prevent worker exploitation by NOT rewarding it.

In response to Dan Waylonis you said:

“The local and state regulations inhibit development. That is all.”

What does development have to do with this subject? I think you are off the topic.

In response to reading you said:

“Is an increase in income inequality always indicative of some kind of increase in unfairness?"

I admit that the idea must be whether there is equitable compensation for the work being done. But in my field the overall objective is to pay the least possible, encourage worker fear of lost work, and undercut their value. This is not a good practice, but it is the reality of my training. This does result in overall economic instability and in the end can cause severe economic problems.

In response to Equal is unfair you said:

“Dear All, I strongly suggest a read of Don Watkins and Yaron Brook's excellent book Equal is Unfair. Rising income inequality is a common narrative from the left but the same people who raise the minimum wage hurt the ones they claim to help. Look at the local MTV Walmart after min wage rise. More do it yourself scanners and less cashiers. Forced equality will not achieve success.”

I think the real issue is not trying to MAKE forced equality. Even though technically the Declaration of Independence does make the statement:

““We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Granted only the pursuit and not the achievement. But the U.S. Constitution states:

“WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So this does in fact imply that there is “Equality” guaranteed by the constitution, but the reality is that that promise is broken. It is not FORCED, but is actually established in the U.S. Constitution. On top of that there is the 5th and 14th Amendments. And the prohibition of slavery in the 13th amendment.

The reality is that the return of slavery has been encroaching in the U.S. via the strategic use of under compensation forcing more debt onto workers.

The California Constitution says:

“ All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

Again there is equality in effect guaranteed by the California Constitution whether it does in fact perform this is another story.

So what really is the point is whether there is compensation made enough to secure the existence of the people working in the valley. The fact that so many companies are trying to use machines to take the place of workers is not a good indication of the success.