4 ms·

And yet it's more than 90.1% of the population posesses... Interestingly, some estimates of (formal) Polish aristocracy in the 17th century place it around 10%

And yet it's more than 90.1% of the population posesses... Interestingly, some estimates of (formal) Polish aristocracy in the 17th century place it around 10% of the population. Maybe this is just some natural distribution of socio-econo-political status of human groups.

gaius 8y ago
And yet it's more than 90.1% of the population posesses... These analyses tend to overlook the age dimension. It is entirely normal that a 65-year-old about to retire would have accumulated more assets than a 22-year-old who has just graduated with student debts. So is the proportion of the population holding the wealth also the proportion of the population who has been working and saving for 30-40 years already? If so there is nothing to see here, move along...
- e12e 8y ago
  > So is the proportion of the population holding the wealth also the proportion of the population who has been working and saving for 30-40 years already? I doubt it: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/population/US_popgraph%202016.bmp https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
tscs37 8y ago
As another comment here pointed out; 90.1% possess about 30% of the wealth. 9% possess another 30% of the wealth. The remaining 0.9% possess the rest. Is the 9% to blame for inequality?
- venomsnake 8y ago
  Yes. Because without the 9.9% the 0.9 are helpless. And the 9.9 can do just fine without the 0.9 but not the other way around.
- dvanduzer 8y ago
  Yes, that is the core thesis of the article. For the last 30 years, that tiny fraction (0.1%, correcting what I assume was a typo/misread) has seen their overall share grow. Thirty years ago, that 90% possessed 35% of the wealth. Today, that 90% possesses 20% of the wealth. The 9.9% near (but not at) the top has maintained their wealth over the last 30 years. The culture problems of this tier of American society may not be as obvious to you, but I assure you, the answer to your question is yes.
- Mbioguy 8y ago
  It's not about blaming the 9.9%. It's about convincing the 9.9% that they are part of the problem. The way the author writes, he is in that group, speaking to them. "We." Compare to slavery. Obviously Southern slaveowners bear responsibility. But were non-slaveowners, Northerners, etc free of the taint? No. Ulysses S. Grant married into a slaveowning family and for years was supported by them. Northern factory owners turned profits off the products of slavery. Regular northerners purchased products produced by the system of slavery. Sure, some are more responsible than others, but the whole country from North to South bore the taint of slavery. Individuals giving up slaves didn't end slavery. Raising awareness of slavery's evil to the point where it hit critical mass, and then using power to force slaveholders to cease, that's how it ended. This article is a member of the 9.9% speaking to others of the 9.9%, telling them they cannot absolve themselves; that they cannot expect to escape without consequence if the world turns again, as it has in the past. In my mind the only question left to be addressed is how the power will be wielded. Will it be a politicolegal revolution or a violent one?
- JBReefer 8y ago
  The American left is heavily reliant on contributions from the new 0.1% that is SV tech money. There's been a pretty noticeable drop in redistributive rhetoric in the last 10 years. I blame Larry Ellison for inequality wayyyyyyy more than anyone that works for him. When you've been out of power for this long (presidency doesn't count because he has very little real power compared to the House and State Gov't) you have to be _really_ careful about biting the hand that feeds you.
oculusthrift 8y ago
yeah but you’re comparing 20 year olds with no money saved to 70 year olds who are retiring and have a house. The greatest inequality is actually between age but it’s obvious why.
bzbarsky 8y ago
As a simplified thought experiment, consider an a priori perfectly equal, static (equal numbers of people of all ages) society with the following characteristics: * People are in school until age 20. * Assets at age 20 are 0. * People work until age 65. * People die at age 85. * Assets at death are 0. Assume that inflation and investment returns are 0. After-tax income while working is uniform, say at $100k/year. Expenses are uniform. We'll pretend expenses before age 20 are 0 (covered by taxes). A really super-simplified model. Total lifetime after-tax income is $4.5 million. This is 65 years worth of expenses, so expenses are $69231/year. Peak wealth, at 65, is $1,384,605. Wealth around that peak is distributed like so as a function of age: 59 -- $1,199,991 60 -- $1,230,760 61 -- $1,261,529 62 -- $1,292,298 63 -- $1,323,067 64 -- $1,353,836 65 -- $1,384,605 66 -- $1,315,284 67 -- $1,245,963 The top 10% of the population by wealth are all in that age range (because 9/85 > 1/10). Note that by construction this is a perfectly equal society. The point is, looking at wealth numbers without considering lifecycle effects is usually pointless. Yes, having a paid-off house and a bunch of saved-up retirement money is not something most people have. It's something that generally only people approaching retirement would have. Younger folks have neither yet; someone who has been retired for a while may have the former but no longer the latter. Now looking at wealth distributions while holding age constants is a more interesting exercise. You can still run into issues because of differences in lifeycles, of course. As a simple example, what can one say about the lifetime earning prospects of a 30-year old making $60k a year? Well, it sure depends on whether they're an elementary school teacher or a neurosurgery resident. Unfortunately, good analysis of this stuff is hard. It's even hard to figure out what sort of questions make sense to ask....

gaius 8y ago

And yet it's more than 90.1% of the population posesses... These analyses tend to overlook the age dimension. It is entirely normal that a 65-year-old about to retire would have accumulated more assets than a 22-year-old who has just graduated with student debts. So is the proportion of the population holding the wealth also the proportion of the population who has been working and saving for 30-40 years already? If so there is nothing to see here, move along...

e12e 8y ago
> So is the proportion of the population holding the wealth also the proportion of the population who has been working and saving for 30-40 years already? I doubt it: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/population/US_popgraph%202016.bmp https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

tscs37 8y ago

As another comment here pointed out; 90.1% possess about 30% of the wealth. 9% possess another 30% of the wealth. The remaining 0.9% possess the rest. Is the 9% to blame for inequality?

venomsnake 8y ago
Yes. Because without the 9.9% the 0.9 are helpless. And the 9.9 can do just fine without the 0.9 but not the other way around.
dvanduzer 8y ago
Yes, that is the core thesis of the article. For the last 30 years, that tiny fraction (0.1%, correcting what I assume was a typo/misread) has seen their overall share grow. Thirty years ago, that 90% possessed 35% of the wealth. Today, that 90% possesses 20% of the wealth. The 9.9% near (but not at) the top has maintained their wealth over the last 30 years. The culture problems of this tier of American society may not be as obvious to you, but I assure you, the answer to your question is yes.
Mbioguy 8y ago
It's not about blaming the 9.9%. It's about convincing the 9.9% that they are part of the problem. The way the author writes, he is in that group, speaking to them. "We." Compare to slavery. Obviously Southern slaveowners bear responsibility. But were non-slaveowners, Northerners, etc free of the taint? No. Ulysses S. Grant married into a slaveowning family and for years was supported by them. Northern factory owners turned profits off the products of slavery. Regular northerners purchased products produced by the system of slavery. Sure, some are more responsible than others, but the whole country from North to South bore the taint of slavery. Individuals giving up slaves didn't end slavery. Raising awareness of slavery's evil to the point where it hit critical mass, and then using power to force slaveholders to cease, that's how it ended. This article is a member of the 9.9% speaking to others of the 9.9%, telling them they cannot absolve themselves; that they cannot expect to escape without consequence if the world turns again, as it has in the past. In my mind the only question left to be addressed is how the power will be wielded. Will it be a politicolegal revolution or a violent one?
JBReefer 8y ago
The American left is heavily reliant on contributions from the new 0.1% that is SV tech money. There's been a pretty noticeable drop in redistributive rhetoric in the last 10 years. I blame Larry Ellison for inequality wayyyyyyy more than anyone that works for him. When you've been out of power for this long (presidency doesn't count because he has very little real power compared to the House and State Gov't) you have to be _really_ careful about biting the hand that feeds you.

oculusthrift 8y ago

yeah but you’re comparing 20 year olds with no money saved to 70 year olds who are retiring and have a house. The greatest inequality is actually between age but it’s obvious why.

bzbarsky 8y ago

As a simplified thought experiment, consider an a priori perfectly equal, static (equal numbers of people of all ages) society with the following characteristics: * People are in school until age 20. * Assets at age 20 are 0. * People work until age 65. * People die at age 85. * Assets at death are 0. Assume that inflation and investment returns are 0. After-tax income while working is uniform, say at $100k/year. Expenses are uniform. We'll pretend expenses before age 20 are 0 (covered by taxes). A really super-simplified model. Total lifetime after-tax income is $4.5 million. This is 65 years worth of expenses, so expenses are $69231/year. Peak wealth, at 65, is $1,384,605. Wealth around that peak is distributed like so as a function of age: 59 -- $1,199,991 60 -- $1,230,760 61 -- $1,261,529 62 -- $1,292,298 63 -- $1,323,067 64 -- $1,353,836 65 -- $1,384,605 66 -- $1,315,284 67 -- $1,245,963 The top 10% of the population by wealth are all in that age range (because 9/85 > 1/10). Note that by construction this is a perfectly equal society. The point is, looking at wealth numbers without considering lifecycle effects is usually pointless. Yes, having a paid-off house and a bunch of saved-up retirement money is not something most people have. It's something that generally only people approaching retirement would have. Younger folks have neither yet; someone who has been retired for a while may have the former but no longer the latter. Now looking at wealth distributions while holding age constants is a more interesting exercise. You can still run into issues because of differences in lifeycles, of course. As a simple example, what can one say about the lifetime earning prospects of a 30-year old making $60k a year? Well, it sure depends on whether they're an elementary school teacher or a neurosurgery resident. Unfortunately, good analysis of this stuff is hard. It's even hard to figure out what sort of questions make sense to ask....