The latest report showed that the 1% now captures an average of 26.3 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent in 2015. It's the highest level since 1928.
In nine states in the U.S., the top 1% represents more than half of all income growth.

With that in mind, it shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with the MSM that some journalists have eagerly strapped on kneepads in order to service the wealthy ruling class. This article is a first class example.

Lloyd Blankfein, who is stepping down as chief executive of Goldman Sachs, personified the era of economic inequality. At a time when average Americans are struggling to make wage gains, Blankfein was paid tens of millions every year, and his firm catered to the wealthiest of Americans.

This country could use more people like Blankfein.
...
But what if inequality is the wrong metric. Herewith a modest proposition: economic inequality is not the best yardstick. What we should be paying attention to is social mobility.

The concepts are similar enough to often be confused. For instance, if you lived in a country where all the wage gains were captured by a very few (inequality), it would be hard for anyone else to make progress (lack of mobility). And that’s not so far off from describing the United States today.

No, that IS the United States today, and Blankfein is one of major reasons for that reality.
That ship has sailed.

Blankfein should be a role model. His father was a postal worker in New York City. That he made it to Harvard and to the top of Wall Street should be an inspiration.

F*ck inspirations and role models.
I don't need a thieving banker role model to want to succeed. Only an ass-kisser thinks otherwise.

More poverty is bad; that’s true, and it is always true.

But inequality...

Stop right there. If you have to use "but" after "more poverty is bad" then you've left morality behind.
Here's a question for this pathetic creep:
Let's say social mobility is perfect, or near perfect in this capitalist utopia. Anyone can rise to be anything.
Yet the 1% owns 90% of the wealth. Children starve is the streets. Living in dignity is an unattainable dream for the working class. Crime is rampant, and the government is forced to declare martial law in order to protect the property of the ruling elite.

Is the only possible solution for this dystopia/utopia "more opportunity"? More capitalism for the poor?

When does fairness, justice, and redistribution become recognized as necessary for society? And that the wealthy will never willingly share their wealth for the good of mankind?

What is happening instead is this.

SQUEEZING the top 1% ought to be the most natural thing in the world for politicians seeking to please the masses. Yet, with few exceptions, today’s populist insurgents are more concerned with immigration and sovereignty than with the top rate of income tax. This disconnect may be more than an oddity. It may be a sign of the corrupting influence of inequality on democracy.
....But studies of the relation between democracy and levels of inequality point in conflicting directions. Mr Acemoglu and Mr Robinson tackle the question in another paper, co-written with Suresh Naidu and Pascual Restrepo. They conclude that democracies raise more taxes than non-democracies do. But this does not translate reliably into lower levels of income inequality.

One possible reason for this disconnect is that people do not care much about inequality, or want their politicians to do anything about it. The results of surveys suggest otherwise, however. When asked by pollsters, more than two-thirds of Americans and Europeans express concern about current levels of inequality.