The article basically has two points: Point 1) If we loosen regulations on mutual funds to allow them to behave like hedge funds (borrow more aggressively agai

The article basically has two points: Point 1) If we loosen regulations on mutual funds to allow them to behave like hedge funds (borrow more aggressively against their capital) then more of the 99% will get higher returns on their investments. 2) If we loosen regulations on medical and law professions to allow people with less training to offer more services, then more people will have better paying jobs and people will save money. Let's address Point 1 first; most of the 99% don't have investment accounts of any kind. Most of those that do have only retirement accounts. This deregulation isn't likely to create much increase in wealth for the 99%, but it does present a great increase in risk. Allowing mutual funds to borrow more against their capital can lead to another 2008-esque meltdown, only this time instead of mortgages it will be retirement accounts that collapse. Lovely. Now for Point 2; again it's about risk versus reward. There may indeed be services that nurse practitioners could offer, or legal technicians instead of actual lawyers, that they currently cannot offer. But it's a matter of where you draw the line, who do you trust to draw that line? And are we sure that that this isn't just a short term gain? A large reason nurse practitioners are cheaper than doctors is that they don't need the same extremely expensive malpractice insurance that doctors do. But if they start providing more services, then they might and your cost savings go away. And in both of these fields in particular, there's a reason you have doctors go through such thorough training before they start providing medical advice, or a lawyer does before providing legal advice; because the cost of fuck ups can be enormous. If nurse practitioners start writing prescriptions and their lack of training leads to bad mixes of medication the malpractice suit would come immediately. Regardless, both of these suggestions are mere drops in the bucket compared to the vast gap in increased earnings between the 99% and the top 1% (or worse 0.1%), and in no way would create meaningful impacts on people's lives. Let alone addressing the root issues that really lead to the monstrous differences between worker and executive pay levels at many/most companies.