[pahkah]

Thanks for the link!

I don't think the rebuttal makes a fair characterization of Stewart's article. Slate's argument comes down to "Stewart is taking his eyes off the prize, asking us to focus on the 9.9% when the 1% are really the problem" but I didn't interpret the Atlantic piece as implying that those at the very top are innocent in all this. It was more saying that the upper class (9.9%) have been complicit as the top 0.1% have garnered an increasingly vast portion of wealth.

Stewart is asking those in the 9.9% to be more cognizant of those below them, to stop looking up at the 0.1% and realize that the actions they take to improve the outcomes for their children are reducing income mobility.

[AstralStorm]

Asking is totally not constructive. What is his plan?

Without that the piece is worthless blame shifting. Calls to action are pointless when no action is suggested.

Or is he asking us to figure it out? That worked well so far... /s