I've seen Paul Graham make a few shocking remarks about wealth distribution claiming for instance there'd be no Sergey and Larry (i.e. Google) if they thought some of their wealth was given to the poor. I doubt Sergey and Larry would have been one bit perturbed if they thought they would have amassed 80% of or even less. In their wildest dreams they could probably not have even imagined amassing 20% of that. But I don't want to get bogged down talking about their outlying data point - though Mr Graham chose to present it as exemplar.

My main objection to Mr Graham (apart from his general "let them eat LISP" tone) is that his point is moot in the larger context. Yes it is true that the technology sectors have been phenomenally successful in the last few years but they are such a tiny amount of the actual working economy. They only stand out because they are still in growth while the vast bulk of the economy is not.

Mr Graham quite grandiosely describes himself as a "creator of inequality" as though he is somehow on a par with these captains of industry, the 1% or economic elite as we variously describe them but he is not. He's just another cog in the system - a well remunerated cog certainly but a cog nonetheless.

As a programmer myself I enjoy an elevated income and standard of living. Having worked in a few startups I have rubbed shoulder regularly with a few millionaires (self-made and otherwise) and by and large I would describe these guys as often friendly, often generous, and always fiendishly clever and hard working. I've never envied them their gains and I've never wanted for more - I'm doing a job I love and I have enough money to live in comfort and can buy most things I need without having to struggle.

But we are in a different world my millionaire friends and I. In the various other walks of life I encounter I see people working harder than me, more qualified than I, and enjoying far less job security than me, and all simply because they work in "low growth" sectors of the economy. Sectors that are nonetheless necessary, such as health, with skills that are nonetheless indispensable (nurses, firemen) yet woefully under resourced. All because they aren't growth industries - which can basically be reinterpreted as "there isn't a quick buck to be made".

On the flip side to that Mr Graham talks about how the successful businesses are those that have increased productivity by harnessing technology to increase efficiency and productivity but if that is the general trend, that the economy is nurturing more efficient use of resources then why isn't the cost of living going down?

The truth of it is that Mr Graham and I are enjoying relatively sweet times because we are the darlings of capital. We give better returns on investment than other sectors of the economy. We find new ways to do things so that the cost of running businesses is decreased whilst still charging the same price for the services to the consumer.

We shouldn't be so quick to set ourselves at odds with the egalitarian movement. Certainly I wouldn't rush to pay more tax or earn a lesser wage - but at the same time it does hurt me to see the numbers of homeless increasing, my friends and family struggling, and the quality of medical care in decline. I'd have to weigh these factors up before taking flight with my valuable skillset.

But what I do wonder about, is about these shadowy figures in the background that always seem to be taking a cut. I mean the actors and organisations that fund and manipulate all of this - that nurture "high growth" systems and starve the "low growth" ones - whether it's on purpose, or just an emergent pattern - and what are we going to do about it?

I believe in Capitalism, and I accept that inequality is a natural factor of society. But that shouldn't preclude me from saying that we need more socialism in our society - that doesn't mean I want a centrally planned communist state like the USSR, it just means that I want our valuations to be more nuanced than just "return on investment".

Somebody somewhere else on here wrote that if you increased taxes on the wealthy it would only amount to a few thousand dollars extra per person. Well I can only say that is a lot of money to somebody that doesn't have a thousand dollars and collectively it is a lot of money for an institution such as a hospital.

I believe the phrase these days is that you should "check your privilege".