>>69555
Honestly, I think an answer to this question would not be meaningful.
Economic inequality is not inherently harmful. It only becomes an evil if the inequality is either caused by redistributionist policies or privileges (in the true sense of that term). Also if riches bring other privileges that don't have to be paid for, like better, subsidized education. In all other cases, there is nothing wrong with inequality, and there is no reason why anyone should feel obliged to apologize for it.
Likewise, how much social mobility there is doesn't say much about the state of society. Higher mobility isn't better at all when it is caused by redistributionist policies. It isn't bad either when no one leaves his place in society when that place is earned (which is a hypothetical situation). Instead of asking about the "total" social mobility, we should ask if there are artificial restraints on whatever social mobility the society already has.
Economic inequality and lower social mobility, then, is a severe problem in an authoritarian dictatorship, as it indicates that there is a class of leeches that keeps everyone else down. In a free society, neither of these things are a problem, and we shouldn't waste too much time justifying them.