You're right, it's similar. It's sort of tautological to say that the 10% wealthiest own more of the wealth. But we're talking specifically about distribution h

You're right, it's similar. It's sort of tautological to say that the 10% wealthiest own more of the wealth. But we're talking specifically about distribution here. The top 10% could own anywhere between 10% of the wealth, and 100%. If the top 10% own 15% of the wealth, that means everyone's basically in the same boat. If they own 100% - that means 90% of people have nothing, and 10% have everything - sort of like a fiefdom. That doesn't seem great. What's the best for society? Some might think it's when 10% owns 10%, period - as evenly distributed as possible. Maybe - but I don't think I agree. Though it's not likely the 100%/0% hard line. Anyway - this article is saying that we're getting closer to the 100%/0% direction than ever before. At least in terms of stock ownership. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to your own interpretation.