I don't think there's anything morally wrong with a wealth gap if opportunities for upward mobility exist. Which is why the following line from the piece struck

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with a wealth gap if opportunities for upward mobility exist. Which is why the following line from the piece struck a chord with me: A hedge fund is a loose term referring to an investment portfolio that is less regulated than other funds, because only very rich individuals or approved institutions (accredited investors or qualified purchasers) can participate in it. The accredited and qualified investor rules, when paired with stricter securities regulations keeping young companies from going public, are almost certainly one of the biggest barriers to upward mobility. How many middle class individuals could have enjoyed returns based on the growth of Yahoo, Amazon and Apple? All companies that achieved most of their current market cap after they had gone public. Now how many middle class individuals could have enjoyed returns based on the growth of Facebook, Twitter, and Uber? Almost none. All of the wealth created in the most recent technology investment cycle went to wealthy and institutional investors - with middle class individuals having almost no access. Economically, there's an argument to be made that lower concentrations of wealth lead to more consumption which leads to more economic growth, and I tend to agree with that. But I, personally, am more interested in solving the moral problem of inequality and creating more upward mobility than I am in solving the economic problems of inequality.