Interesting article, but like many things I've read on this topic, it still focuses on the "cause" being luck. I'm not so sure that's correct (not convinced it

Interesting article, but like many things I've read on this topic, it still focuses on the "cause" being luck. I'm not so sure that's correct (not convinced it's wrong, either, but hey...) For instance, if I look at Zuckerberg or Gates, they had access to an amazing network (happened to both be at Harvard). That network allowed good ideas to explode in value. If Zuckerberg were at a community college in a poor section of the country, I'm not sure his idea would have captured the same value. Similarly, had Gates' mother not been on several boards, Microsoft would never have gone anywhere (clearly the introduction to high-level IBM executives through her board connections was paramount in his success). I don't discount luck - I think it's very important. But luck comes about from your surroundings, and having access to a network like these two had will tilt the luck in your favor much more than if you have a weak network. If economists focus on the networks, they will have better solutions to addressing inequality. One final note - I don't think inequality is necessarily bad - rather, it is the inability to move up (or not evening having the chance to move up) that is the real problem.