This was a thought-provoker that left me wanting to know more about the subject. I would now like to read a 5000+ word piece, possibly with some graphs or other numerical data, about income inequality throughout history and in different cultures.

Interesting, though not particularly news-worthy. Is not framed in a consequential way, and doesn't include many perspectives.

This is a highly speculative piece on tolerance for inequality. Makes sweeping generalizations, namely, that inequality in rich countries is more tolerable since the poor are not starving. That's a massive overstatement as millions of people are either in that boat or barely above it right now in the U.S. Second, the notion that modern societies are more tolerant of inequality is blithely American. In this country, that may be true thanks to the blinding light of the American Dream. But it's certainly irrational, as Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas shows.

It's mushy journalism. What does the author mean by "hard wired"? It's a term borrowed from neurophysiology and, it's use to describe income distribution is, in a word, a leap. After a fairly captivating introduction the piece meanders and finally finishes with the hard wired supposition. What was the point?

writer has a good grasp of the obvious. societies do not TOLERATE inequality; they guarantee it. It's the shit, not the cream, that rises to the top. The ones who get ahead are those who have a better understanding of power, and how to use it, and the game is always rigged in favor of the guy who doesn't play by the rules. He just laughs at us shmuks who do play by the rules--all the way to the bank.