4 ms·
It would be more interesting to look at their wealth as a percentage of the world's wealth. We have greater output per capita (GDP) today than back then so whi
by nstj 10y ago
It would be more interesting to look at their wealth as a percentage of the world's wealth. We have greater output per capita (GDP) today than back then so while the nominal wealth amount may be considered low it's quite possible it was a higher percentage of the world's wealth back then than it is today.
- cel1ne 10y agoI'm pretty sure this is not the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- nstj 10y agoThere don't seem to be any relevant statistics on that Wikipedia page.
- cel1ne 10y agoAh, wrong link, here is a bit more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_Distribution_of_Wealth_in_the_World#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_Distribution_of_Wealth_...
- nstj 10y agoFrom your link: > 1995: top 1% control 38.5% of wealth > 2010: top 1% control 35.4% of wealth I'm still not following your line of thought?
- cel1ne 10y agoLook at the numbers for 1980, but you're right, it's not a good example. My thought is that it's established that there's a percental wealth/income gap that's getting larger, not smaller. It might not be very enlightening to classify just 99% / 1% here, though.