3 ms·
> If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the spread of wealth would also be unchanged. How so? Let's say I build a popular, free, social media netwo
by randomdata 10y ago
> If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the spread of wealth would also be unchanged.
How so? Let's say I build a popular, free, social media network. My income from the free service is zero, but the popularity has investors (which could even be average Joes pooling their money together) quite willing to buy it for millions of dollars. My wealth has now increased by millions without a respective change in income.
- dlss 10y agoIf you click on the only link in the article, you will see they are measuring children’s and parents’ pre-tax incomes at the household level. This absolutely does include retirement account investment income. While I have you here: why didn't you check that before replying? (I'm actually really confused why this seems to happen constantly on HN. These are really easy things to check before posting.)
- randomdata 10y agoI'm not sure I follow? The point is that wealth can be created out of nothing. It does not require income to amass. As such, income can go unchanged, while wealth can concentrate among those producing specific things of value. Your link does not help clear up my understanding of your premise. Perhaps it would pay to be more specific when composing your comments?