I think he means that there are still gains to be had for the children of families at or below median income. Gains that can't be provided unless more resources (income) are brought to bear. Gains that are supplemented by many of the govt programs (e.g., head start) out there targeting the children of low to middle income families. With the prevalence of the internet most of the gains to society are to be had in redistributing resources to investing in the children of the below 100 IQ crowd. Those above can, more so than ever before, take care of themselves.

Brilliant post. Stephen Pinker alludes to something he calls the "Leftist Darwinist" political axis - one that acknowledges that many differences in outcomes arise from one's natural inheritance. Studies both formal and informal have replicated the benefits of another kind of natural inheritance: physical beauty. The attractive are perceived as smarter, more kind and even taller. For the most part physical attractiveness is the luck of the draw. Living in an age where a tendency towards Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) coupled with a big brain make for a life where success is yours to lose. If anything this undermines the argument that it's unfair to tax the economically successful moreso than others. Not only are they more capable of shouldering the burden a lot of their success is attributable to factors unrelated to their own level of effort. Talk about unfairness - imagine being born with 100 million fewer neurons and very weak competitive tendencies in the information age?