This title is harsh, but if we take it as a null condition, we see that the alternative is untenable.
Speaking generally on socioeconomic status, I assume that we don't want the stupid to dominate the smart. Then we are left with either the null condition, or equality between the stupid and the smart. The latter is necessarily predicated upon the condition that society at large places a negative value on intelligence, since the economy certainly places a positive value on intelligence.
Reflecting on this condition we ask if society, modulo the economy, negatively values intelligence. In other words, do we hate people more for their intelligence, per se? Except for the envious, the answer is no.
Thus, the argument reduces to an estimation of "brain envy" in society. I perceive very little brain envy in American society, and find that intelligence avoids more hate than it incurs. Furthermore, it is my understanding that intelligence is inversely correlated with confidence in abilities. This last fact cuts the pool of candidates for brain envy, while cutting the pool of envious people to envy.
So society doesn't detract enough from the intelligent to counter their benefits. Ergo, intelligence generally means a net socioeconomic benefit, and so the smart generally dominate the stupid.
Equality in society will not be realized without increased hatred of intelligence (or increased love of stupidity), or an economy that rewards stupidity. None of these scenarios are foreseeable.