[aaomidi]

Unfortunately the issue with inequality is that it breeds more inequality.

Someone born into the .1% will continue to get richer and richer by literally not doing anything while others on different parts of the spectrum aren't in a position like that and many have negative assets.

If the playing ground was equal at birth and people were differentiated based on their hardwork no one would complain. The issue is the playing ground is not level and every day it gets more and more skewed.

[darawk]

> Someone born into the .1% will continue to get richer and richer by literally not doing anything while others on different parts of the spectrum aren't in a position like that and many have negative assets.

What you're talking about here is wealth mobility. And I think we should definitely be talking about policies to promote that. Especially in the upwards direction.

[aaomidi]

We can't talk about this without talking about the inequality in wealth which is the biggest factor in economy mobility unfortunately.

[darawk]

> We can't talk about this without talking about the inequality in wealth which is the biggest factor in economy mobility unfortunately.

That's an interesting theory. How does that work, exactly, though? How does wealth inequality squash income mobility? And if income mobility is the real goal, why are we talking about inequality, and not directly talking about mobility?

[aaomidi]

Honestly, I'm not an economist. But from what I've gathered from reading various opinions on this matter is that economic inequality is the main source of weak economic mobility in developed countries - especially in countries that don't have safety nets.

The theory essentially is that strong economic mobility requires some "base" value of economic power.

If you're born into a family with negative assets, thousands of dollars in credit card debt, bad neighborhood you're essentially starting your life with negative economic mobility and turning that positive is extremely difficult given the circumstances and in many cases you stay poor. For example, the effects of redlining is still seen to this day after nearly half a century has passed.

On the other end, if you're born into a family with a strong economic background and proper investments. You're already starting your life with positive economic mobility.

The way to think about it is, if you're on the bottom of the graph in terms of assets, you're going to be going further and further down (until where is the question?) and if you're on the top of the graph you're going to keep going up.

College, various inheritance taxes, social safety nets, etc etc try to offset these differences by essentially making the top of the graph a little "weaker" and boosting the bottom of the graph. But is it working?

[darawk]

I agree with all that, but doesn't that mostly argue for shifting the bottom up, rather the pulling the top down? What I see is people using the word "inequality", but then talking about poverty. Poverty is bad. But I don't really understand why the ratio of the top to the bottom is the important number, rather than the absolute value of the bottom.

[threatofrain]

If the playing ground began equal we’d still end up with power begets power. People might just feel better about one inequality over another.

Meritocracy and egalitarianism are in hot tension. Capitalism and democracy are in similar tension.

[pitaj]

The vast majority of wealthy families lose it within three generations.

Growing your wealth requires taking on risk: your investments may not turn out well.

[scandox]

Where does that info come from? I went to school with people whose wealth can be traced back more than 20 generations. They didn't seem to getting poorer.

[robocat]

"The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest families in Florence"

https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14...

[lprubin]

Here is some data showing 70% by the second generation and 90% by the third:

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/money/392530...

Perhaps you just met some of the exceptions.

[monocasa]

Do you have data that isn't a blatant ad campaign consisting of pithy statements from a wealth management company trying to scare people into letting them manage their money?

[aaomidi]

Exactly this. It's extremely difficult to lose your money at that stage.

[jhayward]

Something like 65% of all land in the UK is owned by the same families that owned it in the Norman conquest. 0.3% of the population today. Since 1066-1100.

The stat you quote may apply to some broader definition of “wealthy”, but for the true 0.1% - 0.01% it is truly eternal, and accelerating.