Okay, wait. Wait wait. You seem to be arguing that we should fix income disparity by bringing some incomes down, while it seems to me more utilitarian to bring some incomes up for the same result. One is reducto ad absurdum, the other is what we've been trying and failing to do in the third world for years. So, 1950s > 1500s.

Are you serious? Households making $120,000 per year are in the lower 90%. There is a line of people at the border waiting to come and join the lower 90% of the United States.

You know what I mean. Income disparity is a problem in the sense that poverty is a problem. Inherently income disparity isn't bad if there is no poverty, but one tends to follow the other.

Envy is a real issue, and it looks like an interesting book -- thanks for mentioning it -- but I can't bring myself to feel sorry for someone when their problem is simply that someone else has more material means. Isn't having hot running water and three meals a day more important than to be earning at a certain percentile relative to your neighbors?

Yes, but -- says Schoeck -- welcome to human nature and the root cause of all problems in the history of the world. Envy destroyed Rousseau's noble savage, etc. There's an old joke that I'm paraphrasing wrongly -- having "enough" is just having more than your brother in law.

EDIT: I think we've rediscovered the thoughtful web.