one period to another in time.The only one of the three variables that comprise the social status index, and that is little affected or not at all by changes in organizational, occupational and educational scenarios is (real) income. It is what measures the status gain of IT, the loss of status of the bank teller and the lack of appropriate monetary evaluation criteria for the mechanical turner and the programmer, and expresses whether the status of individuals rose or fell in time compared to the levels presented in the income brackets of society.For this reason, the proposed methodology presented here is able to escape this trap. Its expression of social valuation and movement of individuals on the scale of gains is income. It may be poor in the simplification and reduction of components, but it is strong and precise in the interpretation of the "mobility" of individuals in the social scale of incomes. Ultimately, society values those who earn more and better, who have more assets, who can buy (accumulate) more and better goods and services, in whatever way and whenever they want, i.e. those who are said to be "stable" in life.The social status index itself ends up resorting to income as the primary variable because it is easier to incorporate, assess and measure. It becomes a determining, essential and control variable in the results achieved by the index. Extending the argument from another perspective, one may ask: what would the index be if income was not incorporated? It is not being an employee with a doctorate and occupying a position in an organization that guarantees a high level of social status, because there are doctors and doctors, and what distinguishes one from another in merit and performance is the income they earn. The market generally pays more to those who produce better. Income is the sieve.Finally, it should be added that the proposed income inequality measure presented here provides immediate elements to be used by administrations at the three levels of government to support public policy design and implementation. Unlike known measures, such as the Gini coefficient and the Theilindex, or variance and logarithm variance, the measure proposed here indicates in its composition the status of the income scale and the groupings of individuals in this scale at any time.These components allow one to determine whether incomes are moving away from or closer to each other and whether individuals are more concentrated at the base or in the middle or at the top of the income pyramid. Among other actions, incentives to differentiated wage increases (the poorest with higher percentages), rearrangement of less scattered wage scales, and real recomposition higher than the minimum wage, for example, can help improve the inequality profile.Encouraging the arrangement or reformulation of less hierarchical structures, adoption of less selective criteria for admission or promotion of employees, and appreciation of innate individual qualities (tacit knowledge) at the same level as acquired qualities (education) can have a similar impact.3- Income distribution and education: the orthodox view in economic literatureBefore moving on to the central theme of the