Inertia in Sociology
Whenever some person recommends an idea for change, there always seems to be an argument that it hurts someone. In fact, it's usually a true statement that someone is hurt by a change in society's balance.
Status quo is the current way that society works. The status quo rewards some people while others may feel slighted. Is this just a natural result of society?
Sometimes yes, yet sometimes no. Let's take a particular case to discuss what status quo is and how it relates to change in the world.
An easy case is CEO salaries. The current status quo is that CEOs make more than 400 times that of the average US worker.
If we change that ratio, the CEOs will be hurt. They can legitimately claim that they will be making less.
To bring the ratio of CEO and worker salaries more into historical balance requires a change to the status quo.
Will we be dissuaded by arguments of illegimate interference with the free market economy? Will we recognize that the position of the CEOs inheritantly give them an over-privileged leverage on their own salaries?
In the more general case, we must recognize if we want to change anything in society it is automatically going to change some current winners into lesser winners and in some cases losers.
Should that consideration be sufficient to stop trying to improve our society? No. In something as lopsided and self-serving as CEO salaries, we must consider the current losers, not just the future smaller winners.