Yves here. Please welcome Maurizio Bovi, who has raised a useful question: most outside our putative elites, and even some in them, deem inequality to be a bad thing…but then they often concede that it’s a good thing if it reflects meritocratic practices, or if (in a more passive form), “talent” has risen to a privileged position. So which is it?
A sad truth is that those in advantaged positions seek to create status differences that exceeds what is in their best interest. Michal Kalecki, in his classic 1943 essay on the obstacles to achieving full employment, describes in a carefully reasoned essay that among other things predicted the eventual arrival of negative interest rates, how businessmen would oppose policies that would produce full employment even though they would earn more income at full employment than otherwise. Both of the main reasons had to do with status. Full employment would reduce the power gap between bosses and labor. It would also require an active government role, curbing their influence and pretenses of indispensability.
Another example: as we have pointed out since the inception of this website, highly unequal societies impose a lifespan cost even on the wealthiest. From 2007 in Happiness, Health, and Inequality:
Happiness was a central concern of early economists. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), who was in many ways ahead of his time (he advocated animal rights, divorce, free trade and homosexuality), thought that the objective of public policy was to create the greatest happiness of the greatest number, which he called the principle of utility.
Unfortunately, later economists chose instead to focus on things they could readily measure (plans for a “hedonimeter” never came to fruition), and consumption and production were generally treated as proxies for utility….
And what makes people unhappy? Losing one’s job makes people very unhappy and often leads to depression. In fact, income inequality not only makes people unhappy but actually reduces their life expectancy, and not for the reasons you would think. The Financial Times’ Michael Prowse explains:
But recent epidemiological research suggests that finance ministers, too, may some day be required to issue health warnings. There are good reasons to believe that policies that promote greater economic inequality – such as budgets that slash top tax rates – cause higher rates of sickness and mortality….
In Britain, these new arguments are most closely associated with Richard Wilkinson, a professor at Nottingham University’s medical school. Wilkinson has spent much of the past two decades painstakingly assembling the evidence for a link between inequality and sickness. But researchers elsewhere, such as Ichiro Kawachi and Bruce Kennedy of the School of Public Health at Harvard University, have independently confirmed many of his claims.
Those who would deny a link between health and inequality must first grapple with the following paradox. There is a strong relationship between income and health within countries. In any nation you will find that people on high incomes tend to live longer and have fewer chronic illnesses than people on low incomes.
Yet, if you look for differences between countries, the relationship between income and health largely disintegrates. Rich Americans, for instance, are healthier on average than poor Americans, as measured by life expectancy. But, although the US is a much richer country than, say, Greece, Americans on average have a lower life expectancy than Greeks. More income, it seems, gives you a health advantage with respect to your fellow citizens, but not with respect to people living in other countries….
Once a floor standard of living is attained, people tend to be healthier when three conditions hold: they are valued and respected by others; they feel ‘in control’ in their work and home lives; and they enjoy a dense network of social contacts. Economically unequal societies tend to do poorly in all three respects: they tend to be characterised by big status differences, by big differences in people’s sense of control and by low levels of civic participation….
Unequal societies, in other words, will remain unhealthy societies – and also unhappy societies – no matter how wealthy they become. Their advocates – those who see no reason whatever to curb ever-widening income differentials – have a lot of explaining to do.
Yet those at the top in most of the Anglosphere keep scheming to increase their advantaged positions, at their personal cost, as if more time with a trainer and more expenditures on Dr. Moonbeam longevity treatments can compensate for the corrosive effects of high levels of inequality.
By Maurizio Bovi (PhD), of the Italian National Institute of Statistics and Sapienza University
Economic inequality—encompassing disparities in income, wealth, and consumption—is an issue that profoundly affects individuals and societies. On the one hand, rewarding talent, hard work, and innovation stimulates growth and progress. On the other hand, economic inequalities (hereafter, for brevity, “inequalities”) concentrate advantages in the hands of a few, often leaving many behind regardless of their efforts or abilities.
Inequality arises from a mosaic of factors: opportunity, incentives, social mobility, merit, freedom, institutions, ethical values, and social capital, among others. This complexity makes the interpretation—particularly the normative assessment—of measurement tools such as the Gini coefficient or interquintile ratios problematic. Consider two individuals who, ceteris paribus, freely choose to work different numbers of hours: the data will show an income disparity, but is this truly an issue?
However, this discussion focuses on another, still unresolved and more pressing question for those studying economic inequality: the lack of sufficient agreement on what constitutes a tolerable (or acceptable) level of inequality. To be clear, we consider any inequality stemming from a lack of equal opportunity, segregation, or discrimination intrinsically intolerable. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that “not intolerable” does not automatically mean “acceptable.” Some inequalities may be tolerable, but the precise definition of “tolerable” remains deliberately open, reflecting the complexity of the phenomenon and the absence of consensus on its permissible boundaries.
Given individual experiences, it is easy to see that public opinion on this issue varies widely. Data confirm. According to a Pew Research Center survey,[2] approximately six in ten US adults state that there is too much economic inequality in the country. However, the remaining 40% hold a different view, which is a noteworthy share. Furthermore, aggregated data obscures the underlying heterogeneity. The same survey shows that thoughts diverge across the political spectrums. Democrats are nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say there is too much economic inequality in the United States (78% vs. 41%). Among those who believe there is too much economic inequality, seven in ten accept some level of it. This holds true for majorities of both Democrats (68%) and Republicans (77%). Further analysis reveals that views on economic inequality differ across income levels. Among upper-income adults who perceive excessive inequality, 85% find some inequality acceptable, compared to 72% of middle-income and 59% of lower income adults. However, there is no common definition of “too much” or “some level.” Notably, these differing perspectives are not unique to the United States. Recent research using survey data from 40 countries demonstrates widespread disagreement on acceptable levels of inequality.[3] There is also evidence that fatalism—which varies across individuals—may influence judgments on the tolerability of inequalities.
There may also be internal conflicts at the personal level. Those morally troubled by economic inequalities might feel equally uneasy at the prospect that their own efforts and achievements are not fairly recognized. Yet, such recognition inevitably generates inequalities.
International agreements seem to reflect this complexity as well. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10, “Reduced Inequality,” highlights disparities related to income, gender, age, disability, race, and other factors. The message is clear: sustainable development must be inclusive. However, the wording is telling: the goal is to “reduce” rather than “eliminate” inequality, possibly because no consensus exists on the issue of economic inequality. This stands in stark contrast to SDG 1, “No Poverty,” which aims for total eradication—likely due to broader agreement on the harms caused by poverty.
Two leading economists, widely recognized experts on inequality, reinforce the importance of this issue.
Anthony B. Atkinson writes:[4] “I am not seeking to eliminate all differences in economic outcomes. I am not aiming for total equality. Indeed, certain differences in economic rewards may be quite justifiable. Rather, the goal is to reduce inequality below its current level, in the belief that the present level of inequality is excessive.”
Joseph Stiglitz advocates for greater equality than currently exists in the United States, arguing:[5] “We (or at least most of us) believe in equality, not complete equality, but far more than that characterized by today’s economy.”
What is considered “excessive” or “not complete equality,” however, remains undefined.
Even more concerning—and this is the main point—is the lack of consensus among philosophers. Despite the high level of theoretical abstraction in their discourse, where agreement should be more readily achieved, the crucial question—“What makes inequality morally tolerable?”—continues to yield deeply divergent answers.
Sufficientarianism seeks to ensure that everyone has “enough;” limitarianism argues that possessing resources beyond what is needed for a fulfilling life is morally unacceptable. Another key issue is the role of luck in personal success. Some consider luck acceptable, while others do not, and the literature distinguishes between “brute luck” (circumstances beyond one’s control) and “option luck” (voluntary choices with uncertain outcomes). Generally, there is agreement on compensating for brute luck, whereas opinions on option luck remain divided.
Utilitarians tolerate inequality only if it increases overall happiness or satisfies majority preferences. John Rawls argues that some inequality is morally justified if it improves the condition of the least advantaged in terms of “primary goods.” Amartya Sen, in contrast, focuses less on resources and more on capabilities—true well-being is about people’s freedom to do and be what they value. As per inequality, according to the capability approach income should not be equalized between two people with different psychophysical abilities. Rather than focusing on inequality, indeed, Sen’s proposal concentrates on the poor and disadvantaged.
While these (and other) theories acknowledge that some inequality may be acceptable, they differ sharply on the underlying reasons and hence, on its size. In contrast, radical egalitarianism advocates for an almost equal distribution of resources, asserting that inherent differences between individuals do not morally justify unequal treatment.
Each of these distributive principles has strengths and weaknesses, preventing convergence toward a universally superior approach. Sufficientarianism and limitarianism, while theoretically appealing, have yet to resolve the problem of defining precise thresholds. Allocating goods based on preference intensity, as utilitarianism suggests, is efficient—but not always morally defensible. Consider an individual with an insatiable desire for luxury food and cars: should society indulge such extravagant whims? While Sen’s capability approach centers on individuals lacking substantive freedoms (e.g., the poor, marginalized, or disabled), it remains less clear how the framework addresses the majority who do not face such deprivations. Meritocracy targets this group and has advantages—but only under certain conditions and not for marginalized populations. Strict egalitarianism carries ethical appeal but risks weakening incentives, hindering social mobility, reducing civic engagement, and fostering dependency on welfare.
The discussion could continue,[6] but the central point remains: there is still insufficient consensus on what constitutes a morally acceptable level of inequality—with profound implications for social, normative, and measurement frameworks.
____
[1] This article is based on Bovi, M (2025) “The Dual Challenge of Tolerable Economic Inequality,” Springer
[2] Horowitz J M et al. (2020) Most Americans Say There Is Too Much Economic Inequality in the U.S., but Fewer Than Half Call It a Top Priority, January 9, PEW Report.
[3] Pedersen RT, Mutz D C. (2019) Attitudes Toward Economic Inequality: The Illusory Agreement. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(4):835–851.
[4] Atkinson, A B (2015, p. 9), Inequality: What Can Be Done? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[5] Stiglitz J (2020, p. 228) People, Power and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Dis-content, New York/London, W.W. Norton and Co.
[6] Cf. Bovi, M (2025) op.cit.
Why Class Formation Occurs in Humans but Not among Other Primates: A Primate Coalitions Model
Two relevant hints from this paper:
> Underneath the economics is the power difference. The greater the difference, the fewer the classes.
> Boiled down to two individuals, the equations suggest not an even split, but rather a 2:1 ratio. One for You, One for Me, One for Management; and I’m Management.
The Golden Ratio is less stark: The Lesser is to the Greater, as the Greater is to the sum of them Both.
True egalitarianism is impossible, given entropy and equilibria. A practical example is distributing rocket stoves: Aprovecho developed an excellent small rocket stove, with a particular insulating clay from China. For the large numbers of people cooking on three-stone fires, the cleaner burn reduces fuel needs and decreases toxic byproducts. But the cost to distribute them to the far reaches would be prohibitive, the energy to do so far exceeding the savings at the users end.
It is tolerable as long as it does not lead to the polarisation of the political system; that is , it does not hamper the proper functioning of the government as a fair arbiter between different classes of society.
There are plenty of other issues besides polarization. Check out my 2025 book for more.
On inequality, it would take a cultural revolution to change – France tried a revolution a few years ago and got Napolean but not equality. All the fairy tales, most Hollywood movies, television, advertising, all are built on a basis of inequality is just, and yet my Italian wife, refuses to acknowledge that the beautiful Italian architecture and art and so on were all built on the inequality of the aristocracy (on the broken bodies of the serfs).
For example, consider legal inequality, or educational inequality, or…. I appreciate these articles but the foundation of inequality lies very deeply embedded in our culture reflected in the laws and thus in the economy (and is self reinforcing).
Thanks for the appreciation! My main focus is economic inequality, but I do explore education, culture and other factors in my book.
Amartya Sen’s definition of poverty, as a lack of agency, and the power of self determination, is a pretty good start point for this discussion and really a precursor to looking at the nuances of egality and equality.
Sen’s argument then states that the objective of development should be the expansion of human capabilities rather than economic growth, so wellbeing, once people have an income level that allows an ability to cover basic necessities.
In fact most of the metrics covered in Pickett and Wilkinson’s “The Spirit Level” are related more to wellbeing than survival, and their data is that the outcomes are much worse in more unequal countries, including those classified as the wealthiest.
Then there is that happiness index research suggests that happiness does not correlate to income, once a certain threshold is reached, and the Easterlin paradox comes into play.
Sen’s definition introduces a peculiar paradox: much economic growth comes from specialization–recognition going all the way back to the Smithian pin workshop–and specialization operates by turning people into parts of a big machine, essentially depriving them of agency. Where does the process stop? The answer seems to be that it is not easy for individuals to decide: a single worker can’t stop the line, so to speak (ironically, that mindset is supposed to be why US factories had trouble with QC in 70s and 80s, IIRC…but that’s a different, although related, question.)
Meant to be reply to TiPi, but replies sometimes work in mysterious ways…
That is not quite my interpretation of “agency”, though I take the point.
Sen told the following story from his childhood where a Muslim died.
” In the difficult days of riots, what sticks in my mind most strongly is the sight of violence.
The first murder I saw was that of a Muslim labourer outside my home in what was, I think, 1941. I was actually playing in the garden. I was eight then. I was playing in a little shed in the garden, inside our house compound, when I heard a scream. There was a thin man, profusely bleeding, who had been knifed in the stomach. He sought refuge in our garden. He was asking for water, I got him some, while I was also shouting for help. My father was somewhere else, but was soon fetched, and he rushed the person—his name was Kader Mia—to the hospital. And there this guy died.
I had a few minutes of conversation with him, while help was coming. I had not only a profound sense of sadness and of helplessness, but also one of bewilderment. Why would someone—the assailant was clearly one of the local Hindu thugs—have knifed a person he did not know? It seemed incredible at eight.
But also, he kept on saying that he was aware that, as a Muslim labourer, he was taking a risk in coming to a mainly Hindu area for a daily labourer’s job. It would give him some income, and he did need the income because there was nothing to eat at home. He had to come and take the risk. As I tried to understand why he did something so risky, it told me something about the extensive reach and overpowering consequences of economic penury—the “unfreedom” in generates.
Aside from going over the brutality and the overwhelming sadness of seeing a person bleed to death, I felt I had to understand things of which I had no understanding earlier. One lesson was that people who fostered and fomented the belligerence of “identities” will kill another without having anything against the person, other than just the identity of his being of another community.
An amazing and incredible thought. But secondly, I also learned something about the nature of economic un-freedom—the fact that Kader Mia had to go out to work, and in a sense was compelled to go to the only place where work was offered to him, which was in a Hindu area, which was dangerous. And he said his wife told him not to go. But he had to go in order to get something for the family to eat. So the idea that economic un-freedom can generate other kinds of un-freedom, including not having the freedom to live, was again a very shocking recognition. In a sense, these were dimly perceived ideas, but they made me think a lot already then and that line of thinking gripped me more clearly over the years.”
So he decided ‘agency’ – and true poverty – was lack of the ability for self determination. Kader Mia felt he had no freedom of choice but to take a very high risk option to earn a living for his family. He clearly lacked agency. And that would be my take on what Amartya Sen meant in defining poverty, and I suppose economic helplessness too … you cannot really help yourself, however much you try …..
In the UK we have something like 23% economic non-participation, a relatively high level with much of that supposedly down to mental ill health, and that has got worse since Covid.
I think anomie in the sense of personal alienation -manifested as economic helplessness – is a part of that inability to self help, and expresses Sen’s view of lack of agency, and that mental ill health is almost inevitable in this situation.
Great comment, thanks!
Thank you.
I just like Amartya Sen’s highly empathetic approach to philosophy, economics, poverty and inequality and feel his background illuminates his way of thinking.
The quote is from an interview transcript and the reference is:
https://www.ralphbuncheinstitute.org/un-intellectual-history-project/PDFs/Sen.pdf
Sen was educated in the department where Joan Robinson and Nicky Kaldor taught, and there are some interesting references to their influence.
I will simply observe that if this is a tolerable or acceptable level of inequality, it appears to be having a significant impact on family formation and birth rates, pretty much world wide.
Put another way, if inequality is an indicator that capitalism is “working”, it’s actually failing at creating new baby capitalists.
As the post notes, there will never be complete equality, and most people are OK with that. I don’t have an exact measure of how much is too much either, but in general, I look at it this way. I have no problem if the “boss” makes more than I do – maybe they are actually working more hours and/or taking on more responsibility. If my pay takes care of my needs and a few wants and the boss can afford a nice, reasonably sized boat, or maybe a small lake house or some such as a result, that’s fine with me – especially if I get invited to a BBQ at the lake and get to take a spin on the boat every so often, metaphorically speaking or otherwise. There is some “trickle down” after all. But if the boss gets to be a squillionaire and owns a megayacht off of the labor of employees, and likely doesn’t even know the names of any of them outside the C suite, then clearly productivity gains are being siphoned to the top and people are not being paid the true worth of their labor. When that happens, the boss needs to receive a visit from the taxman and be cut down to size.
The US was a pretty prosperous country during the Eisenhower days when there was a 90% tax rate for the top earners. No reason we couldn’t get back to that, other than lack of political will.
Is there a position in the United States that is more important than president? I believe capping the highest salary at $400,000—the president’s annual salary—is the first step toward correcting income inequality.
Bovi’s piece focuses on economic inequality and how/whether, as with other noxious matters, to reduce or obliterate it. That’s chewing on a tough piece of shoe leather! I wonder if the discussion might be improved by taking into account a fuller context. He alludes to elements of it: “Inequality arises from a mosaic of factors: opportunity, incentives, social mobility, merit, freedom, institutions, ethical values, and social capital, among others.” Such factors are dynamic and have interactions that shape economic inequality and its relative (in)tractability.
I wonder how such other points of inequality relate to/influence economic inequality. Is inequality a matter of ontology or epistemology, or both? In some respects whether inequality is “tolerable,” or has some acceptable level is inapplicable or even silly, it just is. Differences in physical abilities, e.g., strength, endurance, speed, are readily accepted, and often lionized. Intellectual differences get us into fuzzier territory, but are widely recognized and accepted. The notion of differences also involves us in nature/nuture issues, i.e., some differences are “natural,” perhaps heritable. Others are cultivated in various ways and contexts. Then there is how individuals or groups deal with their mix of inequalities.
Getting richer than most because I have a great fastball involves applications different to my accumulating wealth because of my ingenuity in oranizing a work force. I could go on.
My point is that such things would seem to have bearings on economic inequality. Focusing on economic inequality sans taking into account pertinent context involves a variation of the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle.
“By reading my book (or at least the abstracts of the various chapters), you’ll find answers to some of your questions. This post is just meant to spark curiosity.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691271842/the-great-leveler
The Great Leveler by Walter Scheidel, says this always ends in violent shocks.
As I recall, Scheidel noted four leveling events in his survey of history.
Two involve a shrinkage of the able bodied workforce: a great plague or a world War with much loss of life.
The third is a revolution (Cuba?, 1917 Russia?).
The last is a financial collapse (1929 USA, Russia 1990’s).
Scheidel’s argument seems to be that business as usual tends to increase inequality until one of the above events occurs.
Business as usual, with the wealthy and connected in charge, appears to me, to be a fair description of current day USA.
Today I found out that my unegalitarian philosophy is called sufficientarianism. Good to know. Equality, which is either unattainable (if taken as an absolute) or vaguely defined (if not) is a distraction from the problem of poverty; one that is easily exploited by self-defined egalitarian political agents.
While I think economic inequality is unavoidable (some people always manage to get their hands on more resources or to make better, more satisfying use of them, under any system), it is vexing that the conclusion many people seem to draw from this is that this natural inequality needs to be artificially reinforced and enhanced. Death is also natural and inevitable, but not many people take from this that they must help it along to preserve the natural order.
That was, by the way, the explicit purpose of the liberal reforms in Russia: artificially engineering greater inequality to serve as the engine of progress, dragging us belatedly to the lofty peak of “Europe”. Gaidar discussed this openly, IIRC (it was either him or Chubais, but I think Gaidar was the more openly doctrinaire and inhuman of the two). Of course, that was the ideologically-minded reformers; others were just keen to make sure they were as high up as possible.
There has to be a minimum level of economic well-being that allows a person to have the necessities of life and a few inexpensive bits of personal property. And there has to be a maximum level beyond which a person will have too much capability for distorting the political process and undermining social cohesion. How much inequality to allow would depend on the overall wealth of the society and how strong government and other institutional powers are in their ability to restrain the wealthiest from having disproportionate influence. The biggest problem in implementing these limits is that wealth compounds quite easily once the possessor gets up to a certain level. And rising costs chip away at what little someone stuck at the bare necessities has. Whatever scheme you put in place has to have the ability to adjust (including downward adjustments in an environment of declining resources).
“…the lack of sufficient agreement on what constituted a tolerable or acceptable level of inequality.”
One potential path toward defining a tolerable or acceptable level of inequality might be found through pursuing policies focused on increasing capital income at the bottom.
I believe Atkinson (2015) has proposed some kind of minimum inheritance–guaranteed to all individuals entering adulthood. I also believe Piketty (2014) has advanced a somewhat similar proposal.
Atkinson proposed a modest capital endowment framed as a feasible redistributive measure within the welfare state. Piketty called for a much larger universal inheritance funded by a wealth tax.
This kind of alternative raises additional questions like, for example, what are the conceptual differences between achieving income equivalent capitalization gains at the bottom and the state providing a universal basic income? While both policies originate from state intervention, they seem to foster different self-perceptions among recipients concerning their roles as economic actors.
I love the populist implications of increasing capital income at the bottom!
See recent writings of Branko Milanovic (“Capitalism Alone” and “Visions of Inequality”), as well as Matt Rinaldi (“Capitalism in Transition”: in Proceedings of the Paris Institute of Advanced Study (vol.21, 2025)) for details on the quite exciting and sophisticated path they are jointly pursuing.
The discussion on what is tollerable in terms of inequality has to be done in tandem with the flip coin: why the “private property” is considered sacrosanct and why there are at present no morally defensible limits to size of wealth discussed.
The work by Picketty seems to imply that what is tolerable in terms of inequality may sometimes come close to the following:
As Branko Milanovic notes “… Picketty seems to have proposed a persuasive argument centered around the idea that the peaceful development of capitalism leads to a breakdown in the system–not because the profit rate crashes to zero and capitalists give up investing (as Marx would have it) but for the very opposite reason that capitalists tend to end up in possession of society’s entire output and that is a socially unsustainable situation…capitalists keep on accumulating more and more capital, ending up owning everything.”
The check on the system becomes the over-success of capitalism, provoking a revolution by pitchforks or war or periods of hyperinflation.
Is that your implicit policy option or is it something else?
The implicit question is, should “wealth” even be considered private property? Property that is private and protected by law should be things like your home and the material goods inside it (even if it’s your Rembrandt or your AR-15 or your server farm in the basement), your land up to a reasonable amount that can be used for material (not purely financial) purposes by you and your family, your means of getting to work and stores if they’re not in walking distance, and enough savings to let you survive for a decade or so if your other sources of income dry up or become inadequate to meet the necessities of life. Billions (even millions) of dollars in stock or derivatives, private jets, superyachts, and third homes across the country are not private property, they’re something else which should not be considered sacrosanct.
“Experts” accept that economic equality is inevitable because substantive equality is rejected a priori.
One of the first things upon a man meeting another man in these not so united states, will be the question: ‘what do you do for a living?’ which is our society’s way of figuring out the pecking order. Status used to mean being a doctor, banker or some other highfalutin position, but now its all about the Benjamins.
Is this similar in the rest of the developed world?
Isn’t the term “developed world” also about the pecking order?
LOL. We have systematically gone from an ethos of insufficient knowledge to
knowledge so overwhelming that even the ‘experts’ cannot understand all of it
outside of their chosen areas of expertise. Seeing a distant cloud, we can take in
its totalitarity. Too close, and the the ‘cloud’ is merely fog. This is the stage humanity
now finds itself in. One solution of course is to encourage low expectations of Life.
The so-called ‘Finnish Solution’. Another is to depend on the occasional supernova
Genius, like Einstein, whose thinking can modify the course of entire cultures.
Universal education (or the lack of it) certainly can make or break cultures.
It is said that revolutions often come down to the charisma of leaders.
Information of and by itself is not knowledge, and certainly not wisdom.
Finally, once something is ‘learned’ by a sufficient portion of the population,
it is really hard to ‘unlearn’.
‘Experts’ cannot understand all of it outside of their chosen areas of expertise, and also inside of their chosen areas of expertise. ;)
We won’t reduce economic inequality until we stop treating people like a labor pool or a statistical population and start treating them like fathers, sisters, cousins and neighbors. I have come to the radical understanding that you can’t effectively morally judge someone that you don’t personally know.