Why must an income gap mean that only the rich have good parenting, education, nutrition, and housing? Which of those benefits can you allocate exclusively to the wealthy in an argument backed by evidence? Poor school districts spend enormous amounts of money on students. In the span of half a century, we've moved from a society where the poor lacked electricity to one in which families below the poverty line have air conditioning, a car, and Internet access. His argument is that this is a result of price pressure caused by increasing competition driven by a need to keep capital invested in order to achieve the 'r' that Piketty talks about.

I admire accomplishments of capitalism - like material progress enhancing lifestyles of everyone, or lifting millions out of poverty.

But that was not the main thrust of my comment, which talked mainly about "injustices" caused by unchecked inheritance. If you want an example of the benefits allocated to wealthy, here is one - opportunities. I believe billionaire kids have a lot more opportunities in life compared to middle class kids, let alone poor ones.

Edit: tptacek, since I cannot reply to you, I will reply here - one example of what poor people won't have access to "tomorrow" compared to rich people : ability to be rich. And I already explained the advantages of being rich over being poor are already (food/health/shelter/education/...). And yes, your questions certainly helped clarify my thoughts, so thanks :)

First, you just moved the goalposts. Education, parenting, nutrition, housing: you said the rich have all of that, and the poor none. Did I misread you? Did I effectively rebut you and change your mind, simply by asking questions? That seems unlikely.

Second, in this new argument, you refer to "opportunity". Opportunity for what? Wealth? If capitalism is generating competition which in turn generates innovation which in turn drives down prices which in turn raises everyone's quality of life, how much does the opportunity for wealth matter? What is the thing rich people have "today" that poor people won't eventually have comparable access to "tomorrow" as a side effect of capitalism? I'm sure there's something; what is it?

Incidentally: I sound like I'm an advocate for wealth inequality, but I'm not, nor am I a concern troll. I believe the argument were having here is positive, not normative; we don't even agree on the facts. We should get the "is" down before the "ought".

> Poor school districts spend enormous amounts of money on students.

By what measure? Throughout most of the US public schools are funded through local taxes. The poorer the district, the less resources are available to educate children, which means understaffing, buildings which are falling apart, lack of classroom materials.

And is your comparison on funding per student meant to be against upper class families, who most likely send their children to pricey private schools? I just don't see how your statement is justified.