The question for defenders of the theory that economic inequality isn't intrinsically bad is this -- does it actually matter how economic inequality was arrived

The question for defenders of the theory that economic inequality isn't intrinsically bad is this -- does it actually matter how economic inequality was arrived at if its effects are the same? The best example I have is the Bay Area housing market. While it is true that a lack of new construction has a role in rising costs, so does the gulf between the lowest and highest paid workers. Where income inequality is high, but people are still competing for the same scarce resources, prices are going to get further and further out of reach for people at the low end. Arguably, an influx of relatively highly paid workers is a result of wealth being "created", but if I'm the janitor at Stanford who has to commute from Stockton [1], does it actually matter why there is income inequality? Income inequality means, regardless of how it is generated, that a huge amount of wealth is being created and the benefits are being concentrated to a few people. And in the case of where I live, it means things that things that used to be accessible to lots of people have been placed out of reach. It doesn't matter how it happened. Until income inequality is reduced (e.g. income at the low end increases), or something fundamental about the way markets work changes, people are still going to get hurt. [1] http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/03/28/long-commute-to-silicon-valley-increasingly-the-norm-for-many/ http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/03/28/long-commute-to-silicon-...