4 ms·

If you pick 4.73% or 17.23% as the cutoff point you will reach the same conclusions, the numbers behave as you would expect. I read a similar article once that

by fpig 8y ago

If you pick 4.73% or 17.23% as the cutoff point you will reach the same conclusions, the numbers behave as you would expect. I read a similar article once that focused on the top 20% by income, this one focuses on top 10% by wealth... The reality is that there is no "aristocratic cutoff point" - people get richer (and their incomes go up) faster smoothly as you go towards the right on the curve. I don't understand why the author feels his "top 10%" cutoff is somehow especially insightful and "smarter" than the 1% one. It is entirely arbitrary. He says: “We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis. But if you do an analysis of the 1%, the advantages you ascribe to the 9.9% will hold much more strongly. If you do it for the top 20% they will also hold, but less strongly. You just picked a number and ran with it. There is nothing insightful there. Income inequality has been growing but what the author is attempting to do is childish, although the article is surprisingly well-written considering how stupid the core idea is.

mark212 8y ago
because it gives him a nice chart: the top 0.1% have been taking the gains away from the bottom 90% -- while that 9.9% in between has been holding steady. And I agree, it's a stupid core idea.
tlb 8y ago
Most readers aren't in the 1%, but most (Atlantic Monthly) readers are in the 10%. Articles about the 1% are about "them"; articles about the 10% are about "us". That's a reasonable premise for an article: move the goalpost and show what it's like to be on the other side of it.
adventured 8y ago
It's meant to expand the class warfare numbers, that's the sole purpose of moving the goalpost from the 1% to the 10%. You could just as easily set the line at the top 1/3, because that group in the US is better off than any top 1/3 in any other nation. The US controls ~35% of all wealth on earth, with 4% of the population; that wealth is almost all stacked among the top ~85 million adults - a bit more than 1% of the world's population. Among those 85 million adults, there are over 11 million millionaires [1]. Nothing like that mass affluence exists anywhere else. So if you really wanted to push the class warfare game to its inevitable conclusion, you'd pit the majority bottom 2/3 against the minority top 1/3. If you were a nefarious type, this also works particularly well because it pits whites & asians against blacks & hispanics, as those groups largely divide by those income/wealth lines. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans...

by fpig 8y ago

mark212 8y ago

because it gives him a nice chart: the top 0.1% have been taking the gains away from the bottom 90% -- while that 9.9% in between has been holding steady. And I agree, it's a stupid core idea.

tlb 8y ago

Most readers aren't in the 1%, but most (Atlantic Monthly) readers are in the 10%. Articles about the 1% are about "them"; articles about the 10% are about "us". That's a reasonable premise for an article: move the goalpost and show what it's like to be on the other side of it.

adventured 8y ago

It's meant to expand the class warfare numbers, that's the sole purpose of moving the goalpost from the 1% to the 10%. You could just as easily set the line at the top 1/3, because that group in the US is better off than any top 1/3 in any other nation. The US controls ~35% of all wealth on earth, with 4% of the population; that wealth is almost all stacked among the top ~85 million adults - a bit more than 1% of the world's population. Among those 85 million adults, there are over 11 million millionaires [1]. Nothing like that mass affluence exists anywhere else. So if you really wanted to push the class warfare game to its inevitable conclusion, you'd pit the majority bottom 2/3 against the minority top 1/3. If you were a nefarious type, this also works particularly well because it pits whites & asians against blacks & hispanics, as those groups largely divide by those income/wealth lines. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans...