This conversation baffles me to some extent - it seems plain that discussing economic inequality is an extremely roundabout and convoluted way to discuss the ec

This conversation baffles me to some extent - it seems plain that discussing economic inequality is an extremely roundabout and convoluted way to discuss the economic status of the current decade. That particular phrase simply happened to resonate since occupy wall street and similar. The issue of modern interest is rather one of economic mobility - how feasible is it for someone of lower income to increase their income. When we consider rent extraction by wealthy individuals or disparate allocation of resources by the government we're observing mechanisms that decrease the resources available to lower income individuals, thus inhibiting them from increasing their economic status. No one would care about economic inequality in an economy with sufficient economic mobility to reach the upper echelons with plausible (though significant) effort - in fact, economic inequality of the degree that we observe would likely not be possible in such a society. Furthermore, I think philosophically if there's anything to be said for any of the American values most people would agree with the sentiment of the "American dream" - that if you work hard you can better your own condition and that of your families. Additionally, through this perspective Silicon Valley has a clear advantage over Wall Street - skills versus pedigree, bootstrapping versus degrees. I won't belabor that point, as I don't think it's particularly important. Basically for reasons both of interpretability and of causality I think it's more appropriate to consider our economic state through the lens of economic mobility rather than economic inequality.