|
|
|
|
|
by kortilla
2742 days ago
|
|
>that the people born into the top 1% almost always remain there, and people born in the bottom 99% almost always remain there. The former isn’t true for income and doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations. The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%. When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst. Many of those people absolutely earned their position by busting their ass. You don’t become a successful spinal surgeon by having daddy grease the wheels. You do it by taking on $400k in debt and spending most of your 20s in school. |
|
Wealth inequality is not about income is it?
>doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations
So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed?
>The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%.
The statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there.
>When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst.
What part of "wealth inequality" would make you think repeating a deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?