Can we remove "were" from here and the meaning will remain intact?

Yes, I think so. It helps the clarity a little, but it has the same meaning without it.

Thanks.
If "were" was there, what is the complete clause/phrase? I failed to reconstruct it.

The comparative clause [received] "fewer economic rewards for their ability and hard work than were uneducated entrepreneurs" can be simplified: [received] fewer rewards than uneducated entrepreneurs [received].

Of course the simplified version is crystal clear and that is exactly why I posted the thread - "should the "were" be removed."
But if the author insisted that the "were" is necessary, the grammar would be not very easy to understand:

they were upset that they were receiving fewer economic rewards for their ability and hard work than were uneducated entrepreneurs.

It seems that the author has used a reversed structure:

they were upset that they were receiving fewer economic rewards for their ability and hard work than uneducated entrepreneurs (were receiving their economic rewards).

But such grammatical structure seems not correct. Or be straight, the use of "were" here is not correct. It should be removed altogether.

What do you think?

"They were upset that they were receiving fewer economic rewards for their ability and hard work than uneducated entrepreneurs were receiving."

There's nothing wrong with this version. I think if you were (!) to ask the author if "were" were (!) optional, s/he would probably confess that it was. I strive for conciseness when I'm doing academic writing, but I don't know anyone who writes with 100% conciseness.

Yes Ori, I think it would. For some hidden, subliminal reason however, I like that second "were"

Help, somebody good at this stuff

..as suggested by FMB for instance

What I think is ; Wow Ori, after a lifetime in the field of journ; never thoughta that

Still watching for your profile. But if you had already provided it thru persmes, apologize for my crinkly mem. Meanwhile I'm [email protected] and apparently don't care who else knows it

Without restructuring the entire sentence, I think it is clear that what the author intended was:

.

The "received by" part is merely implied, which is not a good way to do it, in this context. For that reason the sentence would be BETTER (not merely equivalent) without the word "were" (a second time) in it.

Ori I take it back; Lay and some of the others are 'way smarter then me
...literally in both its meanings