There are so many things wrong with this anecdote that I'm really not sure if it is even worth debating. I'm not going to create a laundry list, since to do so would just cover most points of both the articles.
However, it should be obvious to anyone reading this that the comparison isnt fair, at all, since by and large it ignores the middle class. It is more appropriate to compare averages, or income level brackets than the top and bottom extremes.
The 'success' of our society has been that we elevated large sections of the servants, slaves, and peasants to middle class, not that we have been or should be motivated by having less rich people. Moreover, its important to assess how rich people became rich, which also sets us, at least partially, better than rich by hereditary land ownership. Finally, as a society, do we really want to remove the ability to become filthy rich as a motivator?
the 2000 US table includes NY city clerk with an income of 35k (close to the US median) and a multiple of 3. an MD's take was a multiple of 157.
I agree with you that it's misleading because it doesn't include the relative size of these classes. Someone should compute the GINI coefficient for the 1830's france.
If you have a situation where people take home paychecks 154 times larger than the "middle-class" income for bankrupting their companies - this large middle class feels unjustly treated (they are routinely fired for much lesser offenses) and will vote for confiscatory legislation. Remember the behavioral econ results about the irrational behavior in the ultimatum game.
However, it should be obvious to anyone reading this that the comparison isnt fair, at all, since by and large it ignores the middle class. It is more appropriate to compare averages, or income level brackets than the top and bottom extremes.
The 'success' of our society has been that we elevated large sections of the servants, slaves, and peasants to middle class, not that we have been or should be motivated by having less rich people. Moreover, its important to assess how rich people became rich, which also sets us, at least partially, better than rich by hereditary land ownership. Finally, as a society, do we really want to remove the ability to become filthy rich as a motivator?