I came across two seemingly unrelated pieces of information (this is mostly a note to myself).
At TED Global, prof. Wilkinson repeated its thesis that “societies with more equal distribution of incomes have better health, fewer social problems (violence, drug abuse, teenage births, mental illness, obesity, and others)” (from wikipedia)
The Nesta Growth Dynamics report (pdf) underlines how US have a more dynamic business landscape than Europe, both in terms of growth and contraction. “Europe has a much larger share of ‘static’ firms, that is, firms that neither expand nor contract in a three-year period.”
Obviously the first refers to citizens, and to static measures of inequality, while the second to business and to mobility across time. Although they are often confused, inequality (wide gap between rich and poor) does not mean mobility (possibility that kids from poor families become rich, or that new startup become large companies). Countries can be inequal but not mobile (US citizens) or equal and not mobile (Italy).
My personal view is that inequality is not bad in itself, provided that it is combined with mobility. Possibly, mobility in the business world is more important that between citizens. But would like to get deeper in the topic. Any idea is welcome.