&gt;<i>If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we&#x27;re heading in the right direction.</i><p>No, &quot;upward mobility to achieve great wealth&quot; is not my concern -- I think I made that clear in the comment.<p>Upward mobility to middle class, middle class stability (to going back to poverty), and upward mobility from middle class to upper middle class are my concerns.<p>To which &quot;upward mobility to achieve great wealth&quot; could even be working against -- while itself concerning a very tiny majority.<p>&gt;<i>I don&#x27;t think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don&#x27;t have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies.</i><p>What I&#x27;m trying to get at is that there&#x27;s a difference though between:<p>&quot;we could only make 10 non-rich people ultra-rich in 1950, whereas we have 1000 non-rich made ultra-rich today&quot;.<p>Which might be all well and good, but this &quot;upward mobility&quot; only concerns a tiny minority, and having a healthy &quot;upward mobility&quot; and social stability for the large masses.