If you manipulated consumption to be identical, you&#x27;d still have status - it&#x27;d just be based on good looks or other such things.<p>In fact, realistically, status already is based on things like this. A friend of mine (roughly top 1-2%) complained to me last night that no matter how much effort he puts in, he still won&#x27;t be as tall or non-bald as I am. And realistically, a hot woman earning $25&#x2F;year has much higher status than both of us 1-2%ers.<p><i>I hardly think it&#x27;s that simple.</i><p>It was your theory that being the richest person in the neighborhood raises your status, not mine. I&#x27;m glad we&#x27;ve mutually rejected that theory.<p><i>Deluded people move to New York and LA frequently, often to their own detriment, because of the status of residing in such glamorous places.</i><p>Why do you believe that they do so for status rather than for other amenities (e.g. access to jobs, NY&#x2F;LA lifestyle, a desire to be near people they identify with)?<p>If you are really concerned about such things, the right solution is a pigouvian signalling task - apply a tax to status goods to internalize the externality. E.g., we should tax things like education, suits, good looks, and loudly criticizing Trump on twitter&#x2F;facebook.