Working-class people justify large wealth gaps even when they concede income is arbitrary.

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

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to system-justification theory in Jost’s own framework — the classic finding that the disadvantaged endorse the status quo.
• DEEPTHINKING: The juxtaposition — poor machine operators defending the windfall gains of sweepstakes winners — captures how legitimacy beliefs override material self-interest even when the basis of the gain is explicitly random, not earned.