This article builds an elaborate straw-man argument: it argues that "happiness" appears to correlate with the perception of upward mobility (according to one survey, anyway). This may well be true -- but it doesn't mean that income inequality makes people happy!

Moreover, it doesn't logically follow that taking steps to reduce income inequality would harm society's perception of upward mobility. Other than a weak assertion that focusing on inequality "legitimizes envy", the article does absolutely nothing to establish the link. It's taken as an article of faith that "redistributing income" (whatever that means) is bad for the motivation of the poor to become less poor.

Stated another way: "the richer I become, the more inspired poor people are to be like me. Therefore, you should make sure that I stay at least as rich as I am today."

I do agree with the article's point. Money is an abstract representation of wealth, a way to procure wealth -- the things we may want. Now, that said, money and wealth both tend to have strings attached. Investment, at least, is honest about that. On the topic of "acquiring" freedom, its been my experience that unspent money, potential for wealth, does more for providing freedom, because it provides the flexibility to react to a changing situation in a way that allows one to take the path with the fewest consequences. Not always the path that costs the least or that requires the smallest effort, but there are opportunity costs in everything.

Freedom. And money can buy you a lot of freedom indeed, unless it has lots of strings attached.

money?