You didn't say health care, so no way. Also, that lack of money = lack of political representation and self determination (as JacobVirgil mentioned), so no.

To expand though, I think that civilizations and societies decide collectively, together, though culture what a "satisfactory life" is. You don't get to opt out of that debate, -it happens and a smeared grey consensus is reached that people are aware of, whether they like it or not. That ideal will always be defined collectively by us relative to each other, with the end result being that no matter what the status of the many on the bottom is, sickeningly massive resource disparity will always feel wrong. More than feel wrong, I believe it is wrong.

There is literally nothing that those 85 people in the top (mentioned in the article) have done that justifies their wealth disparity. Not in any conceivable universe, not with any philosophy of ownership or property, etc. No amount of raw ability, intelligence, or honest hard work justifies it (I'm assuming the most generous interpretations of their accruement of resources). When 85 folks have the resources of 3 billion, our systems, as civilized creatures, have failed us. Hard.