I would think that income inequality in terms of real wealth (food, shelter, pocket-sized entertainment-rectangles) is not as bad as it seems in nominal terms,

I would think that income inequality in terms of real wealth (food, shelter, pocket-sized entertainment-rectangles) is not as bad as it seems in nominal terms, especially when you look outside the US. The ability for trades and unskilled labor outside of the US to take advantage of arbitraging wage differences across national boundaries has never been greater. Outsourcing and insourcing labor is much easier than it was in, say, 1964. For many countries, remitted wages are a source of income which has lifted many from extreme poverty. I think you could observe some of the biggest changes in quality of life over the last 60 years in places where wage arbitrage is popular. Of course, by extension, the larger your hiring pool, the less pressure there is to increase wages. Also, I think many studies on inequality assume things like stocks are all worth face value, which is optimistic to say the least. Stock valuation has almost everything to do with faith in a bigger fool and almost nothing to do with tangible benefits. GOOG, for example, has a market cap of >$1T, now ask yourself, how did it come that there are even USD 1T in existence? Were they printed? Can you touch them? Did Eric Schmidt hold the poor up by their ankles and steal $1T one pocketful of quarters and dimes at a time? Or maybe, just maybe, these numbers are all just make-believe. At least, I think it's not as simple as people who live in the suburbs must have wronged some particular voting block and should be punished.