You argue that, by mathematical definition, a steepening Pareto curve No, I didn't. The pareto curve is not the reward curve, which is what we were discussing.

You argue that, by mathematical definition, a steepening Pareto curve No, I didn't. The pareto curve is not the reward curve, which is what we were discussing. Have you considered the possibility that in the actual world the curve doesn't strictly conform to the mathematical one? I was explicitly assuming your hypothetical was true, and showing it doesn't support your conclusion. That's a conditional claim. I pointed to an abstraction for illustration, and you made claims based on that abstraction and called it proof of the real world. No, I called it proof that your argument is bunk. If you want to make an argument based on some complicated theory of socially-based incentives, you need to actually cite such things. So when you discard the only thing that we've got as "a few cross-country correlations between inequality and other bad things", what exactly are going going to replace that with, your theories? Tell me; if I can dig up a graph with a better r^2 and a different label on the X axis, will you change your views on inequality? I.e., if I show you this graph, will you say "oops, I'm wrong, inequality is not the issue, I guess $new_x_axis_label is the real problem here?" (Note that I will of course make $new_x_axis_label something socially unacceptable.) If not, then your argument is simply dishonest. You are criticizing me for being unpersuaded by evidence that you would also find unpersuasive.