The claim of the OP is "We don't need more big data studies to figure out what is causing poverty or how to fix it." Then a list of other things that have nothing to do with that. If the OP wanted to prove his/her assertion about the lack of need for further studies then they should have explained why there is no need for further studies. Their post says nothing about that, just makes a bunch of statements about "settled claims."

I never once claimed there was no evidence for the list of claims about inequality made above. In fact I agree with most of them. But they have nothing to do with the main claim that "We don't need more big data studies to figure out what is causing poverty or how to fix it." That's a controversial statement if you ask me, but the OP managed to distract everyone from it by posting a bunch of generally agreed-upon claims about inequality. (Which arguably will be re-enforced by more data driven studies.) It's a pretty good rhetorical technique for getting people to implicitly agree with you about something you actually disagree on: say something that is controversial and then quickly say a bunch of stuff the other person agrees with.

Along the way guess what, now everyone is implicitly defending the claim that there should be no further research on inequality. If the OP's post consisted entirely of "We don't need more big data studies to figure out what is causing poverty or how to fix it" then they'd have people disagreeing with them, but you should note they've literally said just that, since they have provided no evidence to support it.