[srean]

That's money and not wealth and its a flow not stock and denominated in something that can depreciate, has it even been priced correctly ?

I grant you that it is very hard to measure ownership of (wealth generating) assets, hidden behind legal obfuscations.

Lorenz curve [0], GEI [1], Gini index of owned wealth generating assets would be the right thing to measure to see how understand one's share of the pie. But an enormous amount of records of such wealth is just hidden away, using laws that those very owners helped pass.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_entropy_index

BTW I am willing to be convinced to adopt a different position if I see a well researched, credible Lorenz curve data that has tracked the shadow wealth to some degree of accurate approximation.

[WalterBright]

> share of the pie

Using words like that imprisons one into a certain perspective. Wealth creation is not "getting a share of the pie". Wealth is not an apple pie you slice up for your guests.

If Picketty uses words like pie, share, transfer, concentration, etc., then his book is about as valueless as Das Kapital.

[srean]

For what it's worth they are my words not Picekty's.

It does not matter what it's called. The buck stops at the basket of goods and services I can buy. As long as this basket of goods and services is evaluated in inflation adjusted terms, it is pertinent to the discussion we are having.

[crossbody]

My bad, wrong chart (it's in real terms though)

Here is net wealth increasing for all, let's celebrate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1962-_Net_personal_w...

My point is that the pie is growing and all are benefitting. Yes, rich may be getting more but not at the expense of poorer people as their wealth is increasing too. It's rather unfortunate but it seems that the pies grows fastest (and poor benefit from that growth too) when wealth is allowed to accumulate and yes that means more inequality but if all get better off, that's the price we have to pay for faster growth of total pie

[srean]

> My point is that the pie is growing and all are benefitting.

This is the main point of contention though.

Earlier generation middle class seems to have been larger and more financially secure. That would be our parent's generation. Of course not all of our parents would qualify.

[crossbody]

"seems" as based on vibes? Beware of nostalgia bias!

It is true that middle class has been shrinking. What is often overlooked though ks that the majority of that middle class moved on to the upper class, so not bad at all and aligns with "growing pie"

[srean]

I accept the criticism in name but cannot invalidate a lived experience just because it has not been quantified accurately.

> majority of that middle class moved on to the upper class

Is this true in the US in inflation adjusted terms ? Can say that it is certainly reversed direction in my country.

[crossbody]

Yes, people are getting wealthier in real terms, including the poor. Especially if you quantify it the right way: absolute consumption/expenditures, not relative % from median income (relative count will always show there are poor people even if they would appear insanely "rich" to a poor person from 100 years ago or from Afghanistan).

On lived experience: my lived experience tells me the Earth is flat.

[srean]

> my lived experience tells me the Earth is flat.

That ship has sailed, beyond the horizon. Hope you catch the reference.

[derangedHorse]

Is that inflation adjusted? Also, even if it is, some consider the CPI to be a faulty measuring stick. I, for one, disagree with the weighing of certain categories factored into the CPI.