I also believe that attacking inequality ought to be regionally targeted. First, you need to be introduced to my unusual way of thinking: instead of imagining that people living in economically desolate parts of the United States as part of your own country, imagine instead that they are like a foreign country.
Low and middle income countries really benefit the most from redistribution of income because, for the most part, their economies suffer due to low access to education and barriers to advancement, which makes those economies less efficient.
Evidence from a current panel of harmonized worldwide data highlights a robust
negative effect of income inequality on economic growth that we trace back to its
transmission channels. Less equal societies tend to have less educated populations
and higher fertility rates, but not necessarily lower investment shares. The first two
effects are harmful for growth and reinforced by limited credit availability. Higher
public spending on education attenuates the negative effects of inequality. In addi-
tion to the inequality-growth relationship, we examine the direct influence of effective
redistribution. When net inequality is held constant, public redistribution negatively
affects economic growth. Redistribution hampers investment and raises fertility rates.
Combining the negative direct growth effect and the indirect positive effect operat-
ing through lower net inequality, the overall impact of redistribution is insignificant.
Whereas this result stems mainly from advanced economies, redistribution is beneficial
for growth in low and middle-income countries.
Klaus; Scheuermeyer, Philipp (2015) : Income inequality,
economic growth, and the effect of redistribution, W.E.P. - Würzburg Economic Papers, No. 95,
University of Würzburg, Department of Economics, Würzburg
^
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/114736/1/833477102.pdf
This is a very good article, and everybody should read it. Unlike most people that trade rhetoric on debate forums, I am actually going to prove my views with strong, reasonably within-my-lifetime research because FYIAD. I suggest actually reading these things I post here because my opinions are really very heavily researched, and I have very good reasons for how I think.
*snaps her tail aggressively* Therefore, if someone does not give me the impression that they have at least read and understood the abstract that I posted there, then do not be surprised if I give them the cold shoulder. I consider myself to be profoundly justified in treating somebody in the same way that I would treat any other mentally handicapped troll if they respond without even reading the abstracts of these research papers that I am posting. Whether others believe it or not, there is a rime and a reason to why I am posting these, and it behooves someone that is serious about becoming better informed to actually understand this information.
Let's rip out the entrails of the idea of national borders. They do not exist anymore because Sigma waved her wing and made it so. They are a political fiction that ultimately is not as meaningful as we pretend it is. Borders are really porous, and bilingualism frequently occurs near them. It is simply a fallacy to assume that humans obediently stay within the boxes we attempt to stuff them into. While strong border control policies can theoretically quell movement across borders, there is an upper bound of economic efficiency in doing so.
As a consequence, it is also reasonable, to a certain extent, to treat impoverished regions of the United States in the same way that we would treat a foreign country.
Now, if you have read the abstract, you would notice that redistribution of wealth is not really helpful in countries that have advanced, educated economies. Therefore, let's take New York City: New York City has tremendous wealth inequality, but they are also an economic power house. The reason why is that the inequality in New York City is due to there being greater opportunity there, and when you see opportunity, then I suggest strongly that you be there the "firstest with the mostest." If you are slow to capitalize on existing opportunities, then sucks for you. Get faster. Develop greater agility. I am sorry, but when you see opportunity, then you should move fast to seize it, and do not waste time.
Therefore, New York City follows the trend that we see in advanced economies. Trying to focus on the redistribution of wealth is really not the best route for making New York City grow. They have a mixture of growth and inequality precisely because there really was genuinely a great big pie, there, and some people got there faster than others. As Sun Tzu said, "On contentious ground, I would hurry up my rear."
However, the entire nation is not one big New York City.
As a matter of fact, there are actually less developed regions, in the United States, that have seen relatively poor progress for centuries, and the inequality in those regions of the United States can be largely attributed to a lack of adequate opportunities and insurmountable social and political barriers to advancement.
According to that paper of which you should at least read the abstract, please, it actually might be valuable to address inequality directly in parts of the country that have similar attributes to "low and middle-income countries."
Regionally targeted redistribution policy, especially a policy that is focused on education, is, in my highly informed and eloquently expressed opinion, most likely the right answer to overcoming the problems that tend to be associated with income inequality. I earnestly suspect that it would ultimately benefit the entire nation to help those regions to become engines of productivity.
Whether or not it helps economic growth to focus on redistribution is highly variable according to circumstances, but it is also highly evident that there actually are situations where that inequality is based on entrenched economic inefficiency that ought to be remedied.