FORTUNE -- Earlier this week, I wrote an article saying Wal-Mart could afford to significantly increase what it pays its employees.
My basic argument: Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split up the money it generates between investors, lenders, and workers. And when you take a look at where shares of Wal-Mart (WMT) are trading, it seems to imply that the company could pay its workers more, and investors less, without upsetting Wall Street. So what's holding management back?
Bloomberg writer Matt Levine said not only that my argument was wrong, but "with a pristine Euclidean wrongness unusual in financial commentary." So, basically, he was impressed. Levine and I took to Twitter to hash out our views on the issue. I think I won out. But you decide for yourself.
(Note: Two of the tweets are out of order. Once we got going, replying to each other's tweets, our debate at one point broke into two conversations. I put those two tweets in the order that I thought made sense in the context of the larger conversation.)
There is no shortage of data about the problem, but when it comes to addressing income inequality, no one seems to have any good suggestions.
By Adam Lashinsky, senior editor-at-large
FORTUNE -- I find myself thinking more and more these days about income inequality. The New York Times published an astounding article Wednesday citing data that shows that America's top 10% of breadwinners had the largest share of overall wealth (more MORESep 13, 2013 9:05 AM ET
|Five things you didn't know about Bernie Madoff's epic scam|
|Premarkets: Stocks sag as budget deal raises taper risk|
|Don't fight it. Bitcoin has a bright future|
|JPMorgan patents Bitcoin-like payment system|
|Victoria's Secret model wears 3-D printed wings|