3 ms·

I'd suggest that asking for a citation is more relevant when the position is hard to source, but sure: https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-

by hobls 8y ago

I'd suggest that asking for a citation is more relevant when the position is hard to source, but sure: https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric...

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
That says that 3 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 50%, and that the top 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 64%. But that doesn't mean that, as you said, "Most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families." It says that a small number of incredibly wealthy families have more wealth than the most of the people (put together). That is, the article says they out-weighed most of the people, but you claimed they out-weighed most of the dollars. Your claim is therefore either poorly worded, or unsupported by your citation. And if I'm going to complain about your lack of citation, I should give one. Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite... that "Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States." That's a lot, but it's not enough to make "most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families" accurate.
- hobls 8y ago
  Are you disagreeing with my use of the word "most" here? If so, do you happen to know what percentage of families own 51% of the wealth? Or if it's the word "small," can we agree that 5% (or whatever it is) is still a "small" number as compared to the remaining population? I feel like we're very nearly on the same page here. You are correct that comparing the top 1% to the bottom 90% is mildly hard to reason about due to leaving out the 2nd through 9th percentile, but I feel like the overall point stands. (Well, and in general, I think it's pretty clear that hard work and sacrifice simply do not usually result in wealth. That was my original point.)
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Maybe it's just me, but I read "small" as 20 to 100, not 5%. (I will agree that 5% is "small" compared to the total population, but that's not how I read your comment.) In the absence of hard data, I would accept that 5% of the country is a reasonable guess as to the who controls 51% of the wealth.

by hobls 8y ago

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

That says that 3 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 50%, and that the top 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 64%. But that doesn't mean that, as you said, "Most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families." It says that a small number of incredibly wealthy families have more wealth than the most of the people (put together). That is, the article says they out-weighed most of the people, but you claimed they out-weighed most of the dollars. Your claim is therefore either poorly worded, or unsupported by your citation. And if I'm going to complain about your lack of citation, I should give one. Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite... that "Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States." That's a lot, but it's not enough to make "most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families" accurate.

hobls 8y ago
Are you disagreeing with my use of the word "most" here? If so, do you happen to know what percentage of families own 51% of the wealth? Or if it's the word "small," can we agree that 5% (or whatever it is) is still a "small" number as compared to the remaining population? I feel like we're very nearly on the same page here. You are correct that comparing the top 1% to the bottom 90% is mildly hard to reason about due to leaving out the 2nd through 9th percentile, but I feel like the overall point stands. (Well, and in general, I think it's pretty clear that hard work and sacrifice simply do not usually result in wealth. That was my original point.)
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Maybe it's just me, but I read "small" as 20 to 100, not 5%. (I will agree that 5% is "small" compared to the total population, but that's not how I read your comment.) In the absence of hard data, I would accept that 5% of the country is a reasonable guess as to the who controls 51% of the wealth.