Your rhetoric doesn't address the point though, which is simply that there are (quite dramatic) unequal returns to labour which in turn persist poverty.

All this focus on economic inequality is misguided. The focus should be upon breaking chains of economic mobility.

You state "all this focus on economic inequality is misguided" very brazenly, but what evidence do you have that the two aren't linked? From my position they intuitively are linked, and pretty strongly - sure, intuitions can be wrong, but why are you so confident that we can ignore the effects of inequality on poverty?

At the most basic level, wage growth for those in poverty provides better housing, better nutrition, better healthcare, and better education, which all in turn lead to better economic prospects, because those things make you significantly more employable in all sorts of ways (you're more reliable, you're not weak, you're more healthy, and you're not stupid).

It's interesting that you use the word "employable" instead of the more general term "capable of creating wealth". Someone who thinks of themselves primarily as an employee is always going to be less wealthy than someone who thinks of themselves primarily as a wealth creator. That's because having employees is not necessary for wealth creation, but wealth creation is necessary for having employees. So if you're an employee, you're in a relationship that is always going to be fundamentally asymmetric.

So if you really want to focus on economic inequality, you need to focus on getting people to stop thinking "how employable am I?" and start thinking "how much wealth can I create?" Ultimately, the only way to get real economic equality is for everyone to be an entrepreneur. And even then you won't have complete economic equality because people differ in entrepreneurial skills. Which is why focusing on economic inequality is misguided; what we should be focusing on is wealth creation.

Your final statement "focusing on economic inequality is misguided; what we should be focusing on is wealth creation" is disingenuous, unless you mean focusing on how to improve wealth creation for those people in poverty. Otherwise, it is just a false equivalence - you are suggesting that by focusing on wealth creation for ourselves, we improve their chances for wealth creation, for which there is no evidential route beyond trickle down economics. If you do mean promoting wealth creation for people in poverty, or indeed people who are 'merely' poor, then that is a form of alleviating inequality that I wholly support.

To be precise, I meant focusing on making people in poverty better at wealth creation. If that's what you meant, then we're in agreement.

However, I'm not entirely sure that's what you meant, because you talk about wealth creation "for" people in poverty; you use that expression twice. That could mean what I meant, or it could mean "creating wealth and then giving it to people in poverty", which IMO does not help--unless it's just the first step, and the second step is "here are ways to use what you've just been given to get better at creating more wealth for yourself".

This can include a range of things, like better access to healthcare and improved nutrition, as well as schemes to help people start businesses. Things are still pretty dire for an upsettingly large number of people in the world.

Ok, cool, we're in agreement.