&gt; I agree that there are status effects, but status is a zero sum game. No matter what you do, 1&#x2F;20 of the population will be stuck in the bottom 5%.<p>This is silly. You could, in one extreme, just implement some kind of Harrison Bergeron system whereby everyone&#x27;s consumption is literally manipulated to be equal with everyone else, including inhibiting natural talents or augmenting natural flaws as needed. More practically, you could pursue egalitarian political ideas instead of allowing resources to be allocated in response to market demands.<p>I&#x27;m not saying I support those ideas, just that it&#x27;s silly to say that status is a zero sum game. You just eliminate the whole game.<p>&gt; If this were true, wouldn&#x27;t the rich try and avoid each other and move to poor neighborhoods? In contrast, the poor would form gated communities with no rich folks allowed?<p>I hardly think it&#x27;s that simple. Many people are convinced that increasing their status is a desperately necessary pursuit, and will put themselves at a disadvantage to do so. They may willingly accept a lower life span (supposing that was one of the health effects of being the least wealthy person in a rich community) to gain access to an intangible feeling of status and belonging to that community. Deluded people move to New York and LA frequently, often to their own detriment, because of the status of residing in such glamorous places.<p>If we imputed values from these actions, it would tell us that the pursuit of status effects was more valued than the pursuit of demonstrable health benefits. And I fully believe many people feel this way, and by extension, living in a situation that affords certain top-5% health benefits (like being poor in America) but which does not confer the status they want, is a form of perpetual misery.<p>There&#x27;s also research on Last Place Aversion that somewhat refutes what you&#x27;re saying [0]. People who are in second-to-last place will oppose policies that make everyone unilaterally better off if those policies also move them from second-to-last into last place. They prefer a poorer world overall (even themselves poorer in absolute terms) so long as they are not the truly lowest status person. A world in which everyone (including them) is better off, but they rank last, is worse.<p>[0] &lt; <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nber.org&#x2F;papers&#x2F;w17234" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nber.org&#x2F;papers&#x2F;w17234</a> &gt;