There's a methodological problem with some of this data: the top 10% of income earners is a statistical category. The share of income going to the top 10% doesn

There's a methodological problem with some of this data: the top 10% of income earners is a statistical category. The share of income going to the top 10% doesn't tell you much about actual inequality as experienced by real people unless you know how static the individuals making up the top 10% are. Imagine that everyone gets a year in the top 10%, but that the top 10% has 90% of the wealth. That's not that problematic because the benefits of being in the top 10% are evenly distributed throughout society, despite this being a highly unequal society if you use share of income going to the top 10% as your inequality metric. Basically, looking at the top 10% isn't helpful for understanding income inequality because the top 10% is an unchanging statistical category. You need to look at the people who are in the top 10% (at any point in time) and look at how their wealth changes over time. Edit: Last time I mentioned this people thought I was arguing that inequality isn't a problem. I'm not saying that. I am saying that you need to look at how individuals wealth changes over time to see how much of a problem inequality is.