Effectively the same in terms of distribution of outcome, perhaps, but it's a bit like saying that it's really unfortunate that poor people can't afford their own manicured gardens, peacock collection and garage full of antique race cars.
Only someone well off could devote the necessary resources to have a garage full of antique race cars.
People who can afford a garage full of antique race cars only exist due to inequity.
What's the difference between those statements? As far as I can tell the latter includes the former while adding an implicit assumption about total available resources versus total population.
Apologies if it seems like I derailed things. Your comment was interesting but I didn't understand (still don't) the significance of the distinction you went out of your way to draw there. That said, I think the trailing remark that "only someone well-off could devote their lives to something so erratic" really hits the nail on the head. Even today you can see elements of that, for example on certain parts of youtube. People with excessive expendable income occasionally do some really impressive stuff.
