Wealth inequality today is growing and is unconscionable, but just to look at the numbers it was far worse in the gilded age (and of course far far worse during slavery). Knowing that is no excuse for not fighting it, but let's not rely on hyperbole to make a point on HN.

> In addition to the erosion of progressive taxation.

I assume you mean that the progressive nature of the tax code is fading away, in which case I agree with you and consider it a terrible problem. In some states like Texas the tax code is actually quite regressive, but overall the whole country gone quite a bit backwards.

Interestingly, California's tax code is both too regressive and too progressive (though both are in principle fixable). Since most people with any wealth hold it in real estate, prob 13 has made homeowners in lucky locations asset rich but at a low tax rate, which is screwing up attempts to improve the housing situation. And I learned it was "too progressive" in 2008: so much of the state's income came from cap gains of rich people and during the real estate crash (leading to stock market woes), state revenues fell just when a surplus was needed. The same thing is happening now, though I expect it to unwind by the end of 2024. That can be fixed as well by changing the tax mix for the top 1% and above, (which is why I put "too progressive" in quotation marks).

I still remember them removing the people who had been out of the job for xx months during the 2008 recession from the 'unemployed' category. 'oh look unemployment is down!'. '...but so is the labor participation rate...'