[pydry]

>if you can't see its archetypes in the world around you, you aren't paying attention.

The archetype of a glorious manager who goes on strike which makes everybody very very sorry they ever doubted them isn't one that I'm super familiar with.

I wonder if Carmack has ever looked at a graph of US wealth inequality.

Or played Bioshock.

[defaultprimate]

I wonder if you've ever looked at a graph of wealth accumulation of every economic strata in the US, or just inequality. There's nothing wrong with inequality if the poor are getting richer, have more access to resources, and a higher quality of life with time.

[pydry]

Except they're getting relatively poorer - having less access to housing, lower purchasing power, lesser access to medical care and are dying sooner (even before COVID).

But that's a nice hypothetical you've got there.

[defaultprimate]

Not according to the data.

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-poor-get-poorer-w...

[croon]

That's not data, that's extremely bad propaganda.

Median wealth was the same in 1995 as it was in 2016 [0].

Median inflation adjusted household income was the same in 1974 as in 2016 [1]. If you go the full range it's gone from $54k to $67k between 1968 to 2021.

That is technically higher, but it's not CPI adjusted.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...

[1] https://dqydj.com/household-income-by-year/

[defaultprimate]

There's these things called citations, there's tons of them throughout the piece, those pieces further cite primary sources for the data.

Learn these things before you try to engage in conversations about this topic:

The difference between income and total compensation.

The difference between income and wealth.

The dynamic nature of economic mobility over the course of someone's life. (Older people have more human capital and therefore more wealth).

Fun fact Denmark is one of the most wealth unequal countries.

[croon]

> There's these things called citations, there's tons of them throughout the piece, those pieces further cite primary sources for the data.

I clicked 10 or so citations that all went to the same guys blog where he at best had skewered pew research I sourced directly instead.

> Learn these things before you try to engage in conversations about this topic:

> The difference between income and total compensation.

If you have data on median compensation (outside of regular income) we can discuss it. It would however already be represented in wealth data, so it seems negligible.

> The difference between income and wealth.

Which is why I provided both.

> The dynamic nature of economic mobility over the course of someone's life. (Older people have more human capital and therefore more wealth).

How is this relevant to median income/wealth measured over time? It's not measuring one person's wealth growth, but a time series of snapshots of everyone's (meaning all ages).

[rascul]

> There's these things called citations, there's tons of them throughout the piece, those pieces further cite primary sources for the data.

The author cites his own blog, which also cites his own blog. Almost all the citations in his blog are to his own blog. One single link in the article did not go to his own blog but instead went to a video at reason.com. This is not a pattern which gives confidence in the material.