I'm of the opinion that, as with all things, the degree to which something happens is relevant. I'm saying that the way these people live, 'as if in perpetual envy', is no longer a form of envy. It's something different.
And yes, this means that inequality is bad in and of itself.
What the difference is is clearly outlined in the report I previously posted:
"It is abundantly clear that the chronic stress of struggling with material disadvantage
is intensified to a very considerable degree by doing so in more unequal societies. An extensive
body of research confirms the relationship between inequality and poorer outcomes, a relationship
which is evident at every position on the social hierarchy and is not confined to developed nations. "
"Mental health, resilience and inequalities
Box 9: Poverty and powerlessness
It
is evident that the consequences of an individualized view of poverty can often be devastating....
The sheer lack of respect and understanding given to the disadvantaged in Britain is highly corrosive of
wellbeing, and all the more so because it is constant and overwhelming. We have had welfare recipients
tell us how every interaction they have with the official welfare world is negative: no one has a good
word to say to them; they spend hours shuttling between agencies in grimy offices that reinforce their
powerlessness. Their time is of no account because they are considered to be of no account.
Jones et al 2006 p. 439"
And finally:
"Economic analysis based on WHO data on the global burden of disease (see Box 4) suggests that of
the
total health burden,
just under half is attributable to premature mortality and just over half to non-
fatal outcomes (morbidity and disability). Mental illness, including suicide, accounts for less than 5%
of all premature mortality but for over 30% of all morbidity and disability. No other health condition
(apart from cardiovascular disease) accounts for more than 10% of the total burden of disease within
the population (WHO 2005; 2006)"
These are the mental, and apparently also physical, problems I'm talking about. And they are the result of inequality, be it perceived or real.
As for your example, you seem to want me to agree with you that you should 'prevent her from sleeping with someone else'. Which would be a morally apprehensible thing to do.
I'll stop you right there, in no way is your sexual life in any way comparable to the way poverty impacts the mental wellbeing of people. I'd call what you sketch in your example envy. But that is not what these people are suffering from.
As for your idea of residential segregation, this seems to be another try to 'hide' the inequality. You're still attacking the perception instead of the real problem. I restate that you can't hide the inequality in our society. Say you do separate (forcibly?) all poor people from the rest. How do you stop them from seeing the people on TV? Radio? On the street, where they work?
Even if you somehow work it so that there's absolutely no contact between the former poor people and the rest of society, you've only succeeded in sawing of 1 rung from the ladder. Will you do the same with the new 'bottom rung'? As outlined in the rapport and by me, the issue is not wealth in absolute, it's the perceived gap in wealth between you and your peers, the people you see on tv that are no different from you except they got wealth and you don't.