4 ms·
>So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How s
by ribosometronome 9y ago
>So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How so?
To be fair, he did say it's concerning if the top income brackets are static, so as long as we shuffle out our feudal lords from time to time, we should be okay.
- gameswithgo 9y agoyes, but he just made that idea up, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, also probably never happens.
- ribosometronome 9y agoIt's almost like the haves want to try avoiding being the have-nots.
- jdoliner 9y agoHe certainly didn't just make that idea up. You can find plenty of research on it by googling "turnover in the 1%". For example: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.htm...
- marnett 9y agoThe 'feudal lords' are not the 1%. They would be the .1% or the .01%. I imagine the latter two remain a much more static environment. Also, the 1% in this article is not even defined. After some digging it looks like it is Gross Adjusted Income. There are CEOs who wouldn't be considered in the 1% because they take salaries of $1 while making millions in stock options - it is such a ridiculous metric. Inequality is about wealth as much as, if not more than, wage.
- nugget 9y agoStock compensation is rolled into AGI. But I agree with you that 1%ers are not feudal lords.