Even working-class men justify income inequality as necessary incentive

Evidence

But there is a suggestion in many of the interviews that even if the income is divorced from talent and effort, in some sense it is appropriate. Consider Sokolsky again, a machine operator and part-time janitor, discussing the tax situation: … Personally, I think taxes are too hard. I mean a man makes, let’s say 150,000. Well, my God, he has to give up half of that to the government—which I don't think is right. For instance if a man is fortunate enough to win the Irish Sweepstakes, he gets 150,000—I think he has about $45,000 left. I don’t think that’s right. … Even if life is a lottery, the winner should keep his winnings. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2207 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

But most important of all, equality, at least equality of income, would deprive people of the goals of life. Every one of the 15 clients with whom I spent my evenings for seven months believed that equality of income would deprive men of their incentive to work, achieve, and develop their skills. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2250 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Workers accept inequality because calling it just is psychologically easier; Working-class men defend inequality to justify their own sacrifices; Every working-class man polled believed income equality would destroy work incentive (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Working-class people justify large wealth gaps even when they concede income is arbitrary. #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2207
• Working-class respondents universally saw equal incomes as destroying life’s incentive #corroborates (0.92) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2250