A lot of people are opposed to there being a distribution more extreme than their emotions tell them is reasonable.

Consider what most Americans say the "ideal" level of wealth inequality would be: http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealth-inequality/ and http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

Now consider how much wealth inequality there would be in an excessively fair society: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-equ...

Clearly, people are determining their "ideal" without doing the math. This makes it hard to take their opposition to "this change in distribution" seriously as well.

What this really shows is an increase in the frequency of 1-time events such as IPOs or sales. There is no value, one way or the other, in using cross-sectional data (this article) to describe longitudinal shifts (the rich get richer). It's just irrelevant.