4 ms·
> Source? Yes, it is a pet theory, but a substantiated one. We've looked into Piketty's ideas during a semester project when I did a master's in economics. Amo
by Hermel 9y ago
> Source?
Yes, it is a pet theory, but a substantiated one. We've looked into Piketty's ideas during a semester project when I did a master's in economics. Among other things, we found that Piketty's measure for inequality (the percentage of wealth that is held by the top 10%) correlates very well with median age in the US. (T-stat: 7.2, R-squared: 0.90). Yes, correlation does not imply causation, but it is a strong hint that there is a connection.
- RikNieu 9y agoThis may be a really dumb question(it's late and I'm writing this in bed)but wouldn't retirement savings and investments explain the age related bias? If so, do you propose getting rid of retirement planning?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoI'm sure that age does exacerbate fiscal inequality, as the rich gather savings and the poor lose the ability to work. I'm not sure how you get from there to "capitalism isn't a substantial factor in inequality." It seems like you're cherrypicking the causes that we can't reasonably change, so as to justify ignoring the problem.
- Hermel 9y agoCapitalism certainly also plays a role here. However, I would argue that capitalism itself did not get worse in comparison to fifty years ago. Its the demographics that have changed. However, you are right that we cannot change demographics, so we might need to adjust capitalism. In fact, this argument might even be used to justify more government intervention than ever before, exactly because the situation has changed and the high level of economic freedom we had earlier might not be as healthy any more under these new circumstances. So the argument can go both ways.