3 ms·
It’s not a static group. Those in the 1% are not the same group over the following years. This has been well established. For another simple example, look at t
by whb07 9y ago
It’s not a static group. Those in the 1% are not the same group over the following years. This has been well established.
For another simple example, look at the Fortune 500 of today vs 20 years ago. Very few companies remain, it’s still very much fluid.
- psyc 9y agoI think it's more relevant that the vast majority will never be in the group, than that the group's roster changes.
- zip1234 9y agoBy definition, only 1% of people can be in the 1%...
- yazaddaruvala 9y ago*At any given time You could have a contrived round robin system where 100% of people eventually end up with 100% of the wealth.
- sp0rk 9y ago> For another simple example, look at the Fortune 500 of today vs 20 years ago. Very few companies remain, it’s still very much fluid. To my eyes, your statement seems to be completely false. http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1998/ http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_arch...
- whb07 9y agoOoh nitpicking! Okay, I’ll bite, so let’s just go through the top 10 from 1998 and 2017 to see if there is any dynamism or if it’s a static body like you’re suggesting. 1998, 2017: 1) GM, Walmart 2) Ford, Berkshire Hathaway 3) Exxon, Apple 4) Walmart, Exxon 5) GE, McKesson 6) IBM, United health 7) Chrysler, CVS 8) Mobil, GM 9) Altria, ATT 10) ATT, Ford Wow, outstanding ! As you can see there are a number of companies that are new, dropped lower ranking, moved up in ranking, and completely disappeared. We could keep going even further back a decade and the changes will be more visible. There’s a few companies who are entirely gone from the top 10, and I can guarantee that none of them wanted that outcome. So to you, I say, got any more nitpickings?