I see what you're saying. The next tier down from the rich are more culpable (and well-off) than they realize. I get that that is the authors point, and I agree

I see what you're saying. The next tier down from the rich are more culpable (and well-off) than they realize. I get that that is the authors point, and I agree that it's a good one and one worth making. What I'm saying, is that saying "the 9.9%" have the majority of the wealth (50-60%) is a little disingenuous, because while wealth goes up exponentially, at that point you start running out of money at the high end. If I said that 70% of the wealth is in the 9.99% and the remaining .01% only have 20% (or whatever it is), that would seem a little odd right? Or 9.999% have 75% and .001% only have 15%? Making cutoffs like this feels like the author is mishandling the numbers in order to make his point. Because there really is a pretty big difference between $1m (90th percentile) in net-worth and $6m (99th). $1m in net-worth quite comfortable but not "rich" by even a very liberal definition of the term in most cities (remember most of that is going to be locked up in a primary residence). And in the end, yes, it is important to recognize our wealth and privilege and the civic responsibility that comes with it. I just don't like it when numbers are mis-represented, whether the underlying point is valid or not.