1% is a rather arbitrary division point. Even if you assume that there exists a stable cluster of wealth at the top, why would it be bounded around 1%? It is mu

1% is a rather arbitrary division point. Even if you assume that there exists a stable cluster of wealth at the top, why would it be bounded around 1%? It is much more likely that the group is either smaller than 1%, or larger. Suppose it's larger, then the group could still be stable, but the churn between people at 1.1% and 0.9% would still cause the arbitrary measurement of top 1% to change a lot. Now suppose the group is smaller than 1%, and the churn is instead at the top of the cluster directly beneath the stable group at the top, but still causes the composition of the top 1% to change constantly.