> There aren't too many figures in the business or tech world that I actually admire, and I was really disappointed when a guy that has been this lucky is too scared to acknowledge that life simply isn't fair, and that hard work isn't always enough.
I think you've seriously misunderstood his last essay, and should read it again with a less emotional and more logical eye. He acknowledges the truth of exactly what you said in the opening of the essay:
> The solution to this puzzle is to realize that economic inequality is not just one thing. It consists of some things that are very bad, like kids with no chance of reaching their potential, and others that are good, like Larry Page and Sergey Brin starting the company you use to find things online.
> If you want to understand economic inequality—and more importantly, if you actually want to fix the bad aspects of it—you have to tease apart the components. And yet the trend in nearly everything written about the subject is to do the opposite: to squash together all the aspects of economic inequality as if it were a single phenomenon. ( http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html )
"Kids with no chance of reaching their potential", i.e., life that is not fair. He explicitly acknowledges this right up front, and yet you accuse him of arguing the opposite or failing to recognize it. I find this point of view frustrating.
The thesis of PG's essay is that inequality is not a single phenomenon, and has some bad parts, but also some unavoidable parts. To simplify what he said, some people are more productive and driven than others, and technology amplifies this difference.
("Some people are more productive and driven than others" should not be a controversial statement. I would perform drastically worse at quarterbacking an NFL game than every single NFL quarterback. Many people would perform drastically worse at my job than I do.)