Human Nature Review  2002 Volume 2: 424-430 ( 10 October )
URL of this document http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/kohn.html

Original Article

Unity is Health: An Evolutionary Left
By
Marek Kohn

An actress tosses her hair and lets drop the catchphrase, "Because I'm worth
it"; by her own estimation, she is worth a million dollars per episode of the
sitcom in which she stars, but settles for $750,000. A pop star spends £15,000
a month on flowers. A top footballer is said to be looking at earnings of
£100,000 a week, the rate phrased as if he was still a worker on a wage for all
that.

People raise their eyebrows at sums like these, but they rarely raise their
voices. Celebrities' excesses are, at worst, regarded as displays of poor
taste - but the more tasteless the display, the more entertaining it is. The
public feels resentment when boardrooms seem to be appropriating wealth whose
source is public; in utility businesses, or High Street banks which hold
substantial fractions of the public's money. It is largely indifferent to
executive pay in companies whose business is perceived as private. And if
anything it likes celebrities the better for their wealth. A hint of
disapproval is part of the fun.

As far as entertainers are concerned, this is nothing new. Stars have always
been felt to deserve their wealth for the pleasure they give. For those who
emerged from poverty, a few nods in the direction of their origins would
suffice to quell any resentment from below. But entertainers were treated as an
exception to a general notion of fair shares, which was sustained in large
measure by the conviction that the rich were rich at the poor's expense.

We now have half a century's experience of mass prosperity, but our
understanding of the value of money is still based on scarcity. Once all but a
few - however visible - are secure in the essentials, the force drains out of
arguments about inequality. What would it matter if David Beckham were paid
£100,000 a week, if those watching him earn £20,000 a year? If his anticipated
'wages' were redistributed around the stadium, they would stretch to a round of
drinks; but the spectators don't need an extra pint any more than he needs the
money. In any case, celebrities' whims are seen to redeem themselves through
their redistributive effects. If Sir Elton John requires blooms in industrial
quantities, he is sustaining an industry.

Wealth is presumed to be good in itself, however it is distributed. Even if it
only trickles down, a trickle is better than nothing. But a growing body of
data suggests that this common-sense assumption may be unwise. Inequality - not
just the difference between comfort and want, but inequality per se - appears
to do consistent and profound damage to health. Richard G. Wilkinson, one of
the leading interpreters of inequality research, puts it bluntly: "Inequality
kills".

Full text
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/kohn.html