You might be right about an attempt at misdirection (I wouldn&#x27;t speculate one way or another, but obviously EPI agrees with you), but I don&#x27;t think that invalidates the case about income inequality being partially (among many other sources) caused by AM. It seems fairly well-supported by the evidence from NBER, which Cowen wasn&#x27;t involved in: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;united-states&#x2F;21595972-how-sexual-equality-increases-gap-between-rich-and-poor-households-sex-brains-and" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;united-states&#x2F;21595972-how-sex...</a><p>The (also liberal) Brookings institution also seems to support it, so I don&#x27;t think the opposition case is exactly ironclad: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.brookings.edu&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;social-mobility-memos&#x2F;posts&#x2F;2014&#x2F;02&#x2F;10-opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-reeves" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.brookings.edu&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;social-mobility-memos&#x2F;posts&#x2F;2...</a><p>Another thing to consider is that income inequality is increasing via second-order AM effects, via propagation across generations, rather than directly due to the marriages (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;node&#x2F;21640316" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;node&#x2F;21640316</a>)