August 28, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:Cui bono?
I am so last week. I've been trying to write a long piece on income inequality, in the tradition of my series on Healthcare and Abortion, but Real LifeTM has intervened. So I'm late to the party, as usual. Greg Mankiw, Alex Tabarrok, Andrew Samwick, and Brad De Long have already weighed in conclusively.
But if I let myself be discouraged by the fact that better minds than mine have already exhausted a topic, the only posts you'd get would be on the stubborn mildew strain currently affecting my bathroom grout.1 So allow me to present my belated thoughts on the matter.
Most of the debate over the past week has been focused on a very narrow question: has government policy increased inequality? But it seems to me that there are much broader questions that people want the answers to. Unfortunately, I don't have the answers, just the questions:
1. What is inequality?2. Is inequality increasing?
3. If inequality is increasing, how much is it increasing?
4. If inequality is increasing, why is it increasing?
5. Even if it is increasing, should we care?
6. If we do care, what can we, or should we, do about it?
Many of these questions have been implied in the debate--as have answers to those questions. Over the next few days, I'll offer my thoughts on the matter, and hopefully my ever-so-clever readers will weigh in.
1 Alas, in the grand tradition of the punditariat, I have no solution for this problem . . . only an aching sense of the grander possibilities that Might Have Been.
In my opinion, the key question is #5 - Even if it is increasing, should we care?
Answer: No.
Why? Because we live in a luxury based economy. The necessities have all been well taken care of by a relatively small group of very talented individuals. The rest of us provide luxuries. So the economy can only grow at the cutting edge of luxury. It has to grow from the top - and to restrict growth at the top is to restrict growth period. We can discuss the degree to which trickle down works, but we have to understand first that trickle down is the only thing that does work.
Posted by: Randy on August 28, 2006 5:46 PMIf you haven't tried it already there is X-14 Mildew/Stain Remover.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw on August 28, 2006 6:26 PMAh, Inequality, that old canard. My two sense:
1. What is inequality?
When some folks make more than others. A crude definition, yes, but workable. I'll even add a corollary:
1a. What is equality?
When everyone makes the same. Could happen, but why would we ever want it? Why is it even worth striving for?
(As an even more entertaining exercise, ask questions 2-6 with "inequality" replaced by "equlity". Great fun -- but I digress.)
2. Is inequality increasing?
Of course. When by definition some people make zero and others are making more than ever, the curve stretches. Whether it's a bell curve or some sort of parabolic creature depends on the data.
3. If inequality is increasing, how much is it increasing?
I'll leave this to the professionals, but note that *every* hand-wringing study I've read on this topic utterly depends on how the data is sliced. And if inequality is seen as just plain bad, shouldn't the question be: is increasing inequality worse than constant inequality? (And my answer is still no.)
4. If inequality is increasing, why is it increasing?
See #2. Oh, and because when you have money, you tend to put it to work and make more of it. If one person has ten times another's wealth and each earn X% on their money, guess what happens.
5. Even if it is increasing, should we care?
Oh, it is and we should -- but not for the usual reasons. We should care to the extent that those on the lower end of the curve have the opportunity to join those at the other end and are not artificially held back *by inequality itself*. That is, the "rich" shouldn't be able to stack the deck *exclusively* to the detriment of the "non-rich."
6. If we do care, what can we, or should we, do about it?
Well, this sounds nutty but why don't we institute progressive taxes on anything and everything even vaguely associated with "the rich": income, investments, capital gains, real estate, luxuries, businesses large and small ... and shovel as much of it as we can politically muster to "the poor."
Oh, wait. We already do that and "inequality" is *still* (apparently) rising! Dang! Anyone have a better idea? How about direct confiscation?
Posted by: Valjean on August 28, 2006 6:49 PM1. What is [income] inequality? The typical definition is when a disproportionately high share of corporate profits go to upper management. Now, of course, one must define 'disproportionately high.' Is it disproportionate for the CEO to earn 50 times as much as a worker on the loading dock?
2. Is [income] inequality increasing? Probably in some sectors.
3. By how much? Don't know.
4. Why is it increasing? That's easier: extremely high pay for top management at some companies.
5. Should we care? Yes, if we own a piece of the company that is overpaying to management.
6. What should we do about it? Vote in stronger Boards of Trustees to rein in compensation.
Posted by: Dr. T on August 28, 2006 6:53 PMIf your standard mildew remover (e.g., Tilex) hasn't done the trick, you might try an old-fashioned scrub with a bleach-based cleaner, such as Ajax.
Posted by: Mr. Clean on August 28, 2006 7:30 PM*NB - Why do I post to blogs. It has got to be the most futile exercise I engage in.
1. What is inequality?
Pick your flavor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Inequality&fulltext=fulltext&sourceid=mozilla-search
Income Inequality? Want it with sprinkles?
Gini (my fav - so descriptive!!!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
or syrup?
HHI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index
2. Is inequality increasing?
Disambiguation: In the U.S.?
There is the always pimpin' http://www.gapminder.org/
Looks like a rising tide, but with increasing inequality to me. Thats a tough one.
3. If inequality is increasing, how much is it increasing?
First we measure the apples, then we measure the oranges.
4. If inequality is increasing, why is it increasing?
Better educate, wealthier people have less kids, invest more in education (=higher rate of return), leave more capital to their kids.
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gsolon/workingpapers/trends.pdf
5. Even if it is increasing, should we care?
I dunno. Everyone's vote is equal I guess. If they vote.
Also, addendum to valjean, if return rates and intergeneration endowment are negatively correllated, Pareto efficiency can be increased. (Trust Fund baby argument)
Yay.
6. If we do care, what can we, or should we, do about it?
Estate (DEATH!) Tax. See above.
Sorry for the quippy-ness. Its 1am in London. Ouch.
Or you can try bleach straight from the bottle, but make sure to use rubber gloves. You can use a cue tip to apply, wait a couple of hours, and rinse with water.
If you get really desperate, buy a grout remover and after you remove the mildewed grout, re-grout the tiles. It will be noticeable where you have done this (unless you redo ALL the grout and re-grout, which I've seen people do), but usually that is secondary to getting rid of the mildew.
Posted by: Rex on August 28, 2006 7:50 PMAnother problem with talking about income inequality is that the people are not statically in one group. The people who were on the lower end 20-30 years ago are now in the middle or high end. Anyone talking about the supposed "harm" of income inequality needs to take that into account.
I view income inequality as equivalent to lack of diversity--no one has shown it to be harmful, or that "fixing" it is helpful.
One town (a subdivisionof the county; not a village or city) nearby has the least income inequality in the whole area. That's because they are all farmers and have very little earned income! But they are all in the same boat. This is supposed to tell us something?
Posted by: Rex on August 28, 2006 7:55 PMBTW, I have the following at the bottom of this Comments page (but not on the main website page):
Odd number of elements in hash assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 71. Use of uninitialized value in list assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 71.
1. What is [earned income] inequality?
How 'bout the standard deviation of worker per-hour earnings divided by the mean?
2. Is inequality increasing?
Certainly it has increased since, say, 1970. Still increasing? Don't know.
3. If inequality is increasing, how much is it increasing?
Don't know.
4. If inequality is increasing, why is it increasing?
It has increased because of, among other things,
(a) the ascendency of merit over class when people's place in the socioeconomic spectrum is determined, due to the social transformation described in The Bell Curve and due to increasingly free capital markets,
(b) declining popularity of trade unions,
(c) free(er) trade with poor countries, and
(d) disproportionate immigration (especially illegal) of impoverised workers.
5. Even if it is increasing, should we care?
Yes. We all share the commons. When the least prosperous of our workers are better off there are more parents available for little league and PTA, fewer of our children's peers become juvenile delinquents, etc., etc.
6. If we do care, what can we, or should we, do about it?
Reverse the policies given as 4c and 4d above, for starters. Then start educating non-collegiates for their real futures, instead of fantasy collegiate futures imagined for them by modern educrats. Then ... . How many words do you want?
Megan, we are free to make these latter choices but historically have been blinded by prejudices against "protectionism", "nativism" and "elitism." Freed from these prejudices, we don't have to ache with the sense of what Might Have Been. We can Make It So.
We could then go on to the explosion in underclass behavior: illigitimate birth, unemployability, and crime. That's a whole 'nother problem.
Ken
Posted by: Kenneth A. Regas on August 29, 2006 12:10 AMWhat is [income] inequality? The typical definition is when a disproportionately high share of corporate profits go to upper management.
Say what? Dude, what company do you work for? Management compensation as a percentage of profits is chump change for most corporations I'm familiar with (granted, I work in the oil & gas sector).
Now athletes, entertainers, doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, management consultants -- these folks make lots of money. But upper management? Seriously, can I have some of what you're smoking?
Posted by: DRB on August 29, 2006 12:49 AMHammer home on #6. It's unlikely there are any solutions that don't have extremely unpleasant side effects. That's where you can make your mark in what has been a very interesting blogosphere debate.
Posted by: jult52 on August 29, 2006 9:34 AMGood point jult52. Whether or not from a rational perspective we decide that we should care, the fact is that from an emotional perspective many people do care. And we're not going to be able to make them stop caring - so we are going to have to live with it. The good news is that those who believe that preparation and effort are the keys to success will continue to prosper, and those who think that redistribution is the key to success will remain the pawns of the politicians who run the con. Life is fair - and it will remain fair regardless of emotions.
Posted by: Randy on August 29, 2006 10:33 AMToo easy!
1. Choose any arbitrary definition you like
2. Depends on #1
3. same
4. same
5. No
6. N/A
Done!
Posted by: Noah Yetter on August 29, 2006 11:44 AM"Why? Because we live in a luxury based economy. The necessities have all been well taken care of by a relatively small group of very talented individuals. The rest of us provide luxuries. So the economy can only grow at the cutting edge of luxury. It has to grow from the top - and to restrict growth at the top is to restrict growth period. We can discuss the degree to which trickle down works, but we have to understand first that trickle down is the only thing that does work.
Posted by Randy at August 28, 2006 5:46 PM"
Hello Clueless: Ever hear of infrastructure investment deficiencies?
Infrastructure, like, you know, Bridges, Pipelines, Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities, et al, etc. ??
to the tune of billions of U$D, right here in your "luxury-based" economy? where the "necessities" have?all? been taken care?of ?
Dude, are you the Manchurian "Economics" dilettante? Where did you catch programming like that, anyway?
A trick I learned during a stint at a "household products" factory: Liquid (gel) automatic dishwasher detergent is a very strong bleaching cleanser. Works good on oil stains on concrete. Haven't tried it on mildewed grout, but, hey....
Posted by: raf on August 29, 2006 2:20 PMMark,
Okay, I get that you intended to be insulting, but I'm failing to see your point. Are you saying this is not a luxury economy? Then what percentage of the population do you figure works to produce basic food, water, clothing, and shelter? I'm thinking its somewhere around 10% tops - which leaves the other 90% of us providing luxuries. Processed food, bottled water, fashionable clothes, and single family homes are all luxuries, as are the entire communications, medical, and education industries, along with most other industries.
So future growth will be toward an ever greater range and depth of luxuries. This growth will occur first among the wealthiest. And attempts to eliminate inequality, which can only be accomplished by limiting the growth of luxuries, thereby limit growth entirely.
So, do we prefer equality to growth? Its a fair question. Perhaps there are luxuries enough. Perhaps we don't need any more. Perhaps we should just divy up what we have. Good luck convincing those who want more - that is, pretty much every human being on the planet. Better, I think, to continue taking advantage of human nature than to fight it.
Posted by: Randy on August 29, 2006 2:58 PMRandy,
Ripley's: I really wasn't trying to be insulting. I was, moreso, endeavoring to get you to re-think. But, alas...
"The necessities have all been well taken care of by a relatively small group of very talented individuals. The rest of us provide luxuries. So the economy can only grow at the cutting edge of luxury. It has to grow from the top."
This: "The necessities have all been well taken care of by a relatively small group of very talented individuals."- is really too, too much, to take seriously.
"The rest of us provide luxuries."-- actually, "most of us" are employed for the sake of employment, which is an ill-afforded "luxury", itself. Hardly, are we employed, providing luxuries. We, seemingly, can't even organize ourselves efficiently enough to provide, on an on-going basis, the simple, and rudimentary, necessities of basic infrastructure.
"So the economy can only grow at the cutting edge of luxury."-- see above,+ simple "clean water" shortages, alone, threaten to short-circuit this take.
"It has to grow from the top." -- this is contra to the whole history of Economic understanding, that I'm aware of. Every epoch of Growth has been Hallmarked by providing, to the many, what was previously a "luxury" for the few.
I'll ask again, where'd you school up at?
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on August 29, 2006 4:00 PMMark,
Mostly home schooled, dude :)
I do have an MBA from a little place in Texas, and I like to hang out at econ blogs, but most of my education is from experience, reading history, and a natural inclination to heresy.
You've got a point about clean water, and I do not consider this to be a luxury. But its really irrelevant to my point, which is that it doesn't take many people (as a percentage of the working population) to provide clean water or other necessary items (e.g., basic food, clothing, and shelter). Compare that to 100 years ago when probably 50 to 60 percent of the working population was engaged in the production of necessities, or 200 years ago when it was closer to 90 percent. Yes, I realize I'm stretching the definition of "luxury" by referring to anything other than a necessity, but there was a point in time at which that was exactly what a luxury was. What has actually happened is that our standards have advanced, and our definition of a luxury has advanced, along with our prosperity - which has advanced primarily due to the expansion of "other than necessities".
Re; "Every epoch of Growth has been Hallmarked by providing, to the many, what was previously a "luxury" for the few."
Precisely my point. But if by this you mean that redistribution is the primary mechanism by which this occurs, I will respond by pointing out that the luxuries must exist before they can be redistributed.
Regarding what we can do about inequality;
I don't have an economics background, but I'd say improving the quality of public defenders would be a good start. Lawyers with different rates and reputations are one indication of unequal access to justice. Why should wealth entitle someone to a better defense in a criminal trial?
Posted by: Ryan on August 29, 2006 5:22 PMRandy,
"But if by this you mean that redistribution is the primary mechanism by which this occurs..." No, I most assuredly don't think that it occured by re-distribution. Re-distribution, even threats thereof, make it far less likely to occur.
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on August 29, 2006 8:02 PMRandy,
Better, I think, to continue taking advantage of human nature than to fight it.
Altruism is as much part of human nature as is egoism and materialism.
Also, I think, as our society becomes increasingly affluent, perhaps it makes sense to raise the bar on what constitutes a luxury.
Posted by: MS on August 29, 2006 10:40 PMMS,
Altruism is good. But altruism without materialism is just sharing the day's collection of nuts, berries, fish and game around the shelter fire.
It is the materialist who raises the bar. The altruist simply recognizes that the bar has been raised.
Posted by: Randy on August 29, 2006 10:59 PMUntil a bigger materialist with a stick comes along looking for your nuts berries.
Or until the altruist himself becomes too cynical about the world and decides to just steal your stuff while you are away hunting and gathering.
Or until you and the altruist both end up in prison and the altruist has a choice of collaborating you and backing your your testimony, or betraying you. Knowing you, he just might not take the risk and go with the second option.
The altruist can raise the bar too, or at the very least least, set the floor to how low the bar can go if things turn sour.
Posted by: MS on August 29, 2006 11:36 PMApples and oranges. Luxury goods and good roads. The non-necessities sector kicks off income to enhance the commons which utilizes the public sector to increase the income of the bare necessities sector. However, even roadways can become luxury goods through congestion pricing as has been adopted in Sweden.
In my youth I remember railing against the decadence of cotillion balls (I was suffering from white guilt as an escort to one of the debs). Then my cousin pointed out how all the small mom and pop shops like florists benefitted from this timeless ritual.
So, Randy, hang in there against The Snide One.
Posted by: tom merle on August 30, 2006 2:16 AM5. Why should we care?
Three reasons.
- To decrease human suffering (i.e. the same reason that we help the poor at all). Simply put, inequality causes suffering in humans (and in fact various primates). This is built-in to us by evolution, and is as real as suffering from any other cause.
- We live in a democracy. If at some point the suffering caused by growing inequality became greater than the perceived benefits of the wealth of our society, people will vote a government (or overthrow for a new government) that is likely to take steps far beyond simple inequality reduction. Alternatively it will require suppression of democracy (or armed oppression) in order to avoid that fate.
- Extreme inequality breeds crime. At some point, you spend more trying to protect yourself from those who would steal than it would cost to reduce the inequality that contributes to the crime. As well, the quality of life plummets as you have to isolate yourself from the population whose wealth is massively below your own.
Tom West:
I think you are confusing inequality with poverty. I seriously doubt that anyone will overthrow the government because Barbara Streistand makes too much money. Envious, yes. Social unrest, no.
We've gotten away from the original questions, but one problem I have with the whole debate is the liberal obsession with money, as if everyone should be measured and defined by nothing except their income.
If you read a book such as Jasper Becker's Hungry Ghosts, or probably any other book that describes process of forced implementation of a commune system, you'll see that one of the main reasons communes fail is because people consider income equality to be fundamentally unfair. Why should someone who works very hard get no more than someone who sits around all day? When you force incomes to be equal, people start to worry about effort inequality, and it becomes a race to the bottom.
Hunting down and punishing those that are contributing most to the economy will hurt everyone, on average. And, as others have pointed out, it will slow down the technological progress that, over time, has turned undreamt of luxuries into 'necessities'. Even relatively poor people in the US today live far more comfortable, healthier lives than all but the very richest just a century or two ago. Cars, smooth roads, indoor heating and air conditioning and plumbing and electric lights, not to mention antibiotics and other aspects of modern medical care and TVs and radios that allow us to listen to music without having to have a live orchestra playing nearby - all of these things give huge benefits to everyone. The more we focus on income equality, the less progress we're likely to make (because we'll be poorer and will offer fewer incentives to inventors and entrepreneurs to create wealth).
If we look beyond an obsession with money and consider other things, it becomes clear that we should be focusing on equality of opportunity (with a safety net for those that can't contribute), not on punishing those that contribute the most. It's true that there are some that got their wealth by luck (lottery winners or those that inherited it, for example), and it may be galling for some to have to put up with those few. And I agree that we need better ways of measuring the actual contribution of senior management, since it's not clear that all CEOs are paid based on their contribution rather than through cozy relationships with the Board.
But we shouldn't let ourselves get sidetracked, trying to eliminate a small number of 'unworthy rich' at the expense of almost everyone. The majority of the wealthy became wealthy by making enormous contributions to society (or received it as a gift/inheritance from someone who made an enormous contribution). It was and will continue to be a win-win proposition to allow people to create wealth and then take only a reasonable cut for everyone else to share.
Liberals want to measure only inequality of income, while ignoring any inequality of contribution or effort. Forcing much greater equality of income isn't 'fair' and would be enormously costly to everyone else, all to make a few money-obsessed liberals feel better.
Ann,
Re; "...to measure only inequality of income, while ignoring any inequality of contribution or effort."
Exactly.
MS,
Interesting. But your altruist who picks up a stick or takes to theft or back stabbing is no longer an altruist, but a materialist. Likewise, the "progressive" who uses force to achieve his or her objectives is every bit as much of a materialist as the entrepreneur. So obviously, materialism is not an unqualified good. But materialism under the control of effective laws and social institutions (e.g., private property rights and free markets) has done an enormous amount of good.
Posted by: Randy on August 30, 2006 10:04 AMI'll go to why should we care.
Why aren't we getting the benfits we are suppose to get from increased inequality. Theory says it will lead to higher savings and investment.
But the growing inequality has been accompanied by falling savings and investments and even the Fed has published several article pointing out that the big drop in savings has been among the highest income group. So I hope you address the point of why aren't we getting the benefits that higher inequality is suppose to bring.
Ok, a related question that is probably beyond the scope of your writing, but is rising inequality a natural by-product of rapid changes in the production process as we saw in the 1990s and in the "gilded-age" in the Schumpeterian
creative-destruction approach to economic growth?
The best I can tell the single biggest reason for growing income inequality is the winner take all philosophy and the great growth of CEO compensation, especially in high-tech. Does this stem from CEO's gaming the system, or is it part and parcel of the bigger package of major structural changes as it has been played out historically?
"Why aren't we getting the benfits we are suppose to get from increased inequality. "
The benefits that we are supposed to get from allowing the system to function without excessive and arbitrary confiscation are that people will have an incentive to create wealth, a percentage of which will be directly shared (through taxation). In addition, their wealth creation will give us new jobs, new technology and new or improved products and services.
We're getting all of that, plus economic growth, so we're already getting the benefits that we're supposed to get from providing good incentives. What are the benefits of the stagnation that you seem to prefer, other than that it will make you happy to know that, although most have been hurt, those of whom you are envious have been hurt more than others?
Posted by: Ann on August 30, 2006 8:02 PM
Or until the altruist himself becomes too cynical about the world and decides to just steal your stuff while you are away hunting and gathering.
Or until you and the altruist both end up in prison and the altruist has a choice of collaborating you and backing your your testimony, or betraying you. Knowing you, he just might not take the risk and go with the second option.
So then altruism is NOT a fundamental part of human nature; it's a survival behavior adopted in circumstances when it appears the rewards will be reasonably equal. In other words, even the altruist is merely a materialist with social tendencies.
Posted by: anony-mouse on August 31, 2006 1:43 AMSpencer,
What is often forgotten is that someone is paying the CEOs. The key questions are; who is paying them so much and why? Perhaps the buyers of CEO services are smart investors or perhaps they are fools. Either way, the transaction is between the buyer and seller, and is of no rational concern to anyone else.
Perhaps you're thinking that if the CEOs were paid less, then the workers would be paid more. But the buyers of CEO services are not the same as the buyers of labor services. Is there a relationship between the two transactions? Perhaps. But why should we assume that the relationship is negative? CEOs are paid to succeed, and success in private enterprise is often the result of obtaining, training, and retaining the best and most productive workers - thus driving wages up, not down.
Does anyone know of a study?
Posted by: Randy on August 31, 2006 3:54 AMSpencer: "The best I can tell the single biggest reason for growing income inequality is the winner take all philosophy and the great growth of CEO compensation, especially in high-tech."
How many incomes does that represent? 1,000? 2,000? out of a U.S. workforce of 150 million? How can those few incomes account for income inequality that some see as a problem? There's probably more professional athletes than corporate executives with million dollar incomes.
From what I've read, the top income earners in the U.S. are more likely to be:
- business owners;
- physicians and surgeons;
- airline pilots; and
- lawyers.
Perhaps one could argue that strong unions account for the success of the last three. IMO, though, physicians and lawyers make tons of bucks because they're smart and they work hard.
Posted by: JohnDewey on August 31, 2006 7:32 AM1. What is inequality? – When someone has more of something good than I do. This is in contrast to equality, which is when I have more of something good than somebody else.
2. Is inequality increasing? – Will answering yes get me more good stuff? If so, yes. And I can back that up, too, if forced.
3. If inequality is increasing, how much is it increasing? – Easily enough to justify giving me more stuff.
4. If inequality is increasing, why is it increasing? – Those greedy materialists who have more stuff than me. (We egalitarians hate greed.)
5. Even if it is increasing, should we care? – Sure. We might be able to get more stuff. And if we don’t get it, there’s going to be trouble.
6. If we do care, what can we, or should we, do about it? – Give me more stuff. A large boat would be a good start.
jl,
Re; "Is inequality increasing? – Will answering yes get me more good stuff?"
You nailed it.
Posted by: Randy on August 31, 2006 10:15 AMThough he firmly had tongue-in-cheek (or fingers?) when he wrote it, jl revealed the reality of human nature with this: 1. What is inequality? – When someone has more of something good than I do. This is in contrast to equality, which is when I have more of something good than somebody else.
jl, standing ovation! Well done.
I like income inequality, because it shows how the opportunity structure rewards people who:
- have unusual talent rewarded by the market
- are willing to take risks and be rewarded by the market
- are willing to endure some danger to be rewarded by the market
- work hard and productively to be rewarded by the market
The same opportunity structure teaches great life lessons to those who make poor choices and experience consequences. After life sucks a bit, they usually get their act together and start acting like a member of the reality based community. (Or not, but hey, we'll always have some bottom feeders among us. Even Jesus said so.)
What makes this country/political and economic system so great is that our occupations and wages aren't dictated to us and set in stone for a lifetime. We always have more chances to go down another path. We are indeed free.
If at a critical age, my government told me what I'd be and that's that, whether I liked it or not, I could not imagine the depth of alienation and ennui such an "arranged marriage" would have descended over my life.
I do what I do by choice and I love it. There may be richer people than me, I could have pursued more lucrative opportunities, however, a happier soul you could not find on this earth.
Yes, income inequality is a good thing.
If it causes human suffering, then I say let's confiscate all media from the poor. Watching TV and movies, and reading celebrity gossip magazines and fashion magazines, is implanting more unrealizable desire in them which is causing their envy and hence their suffering. Let them live in ignorant bliss and be happy with their lot. (kidding)