3 ms·
yes, but he just made that idea up, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, also probably never happens.
by gameswithgo 9y ago
yes, 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.