As you're no doubt aware, these kinds of analyses can be tricky when dealing with fat-tailed distributions, such as income. Using the median can hide exactly th

As you're no doubt aware, these kinds of analyses can be tricky when dealing with fat-tailed distributions, such as income. Using the median can hide exactly the kinds of large disparities that Piketty, et al, are talking about. Likewise, saying that 93% of the poor exceeded their parents' income while only 70% of the wealthy did so leaves out the most important number, which is the aggregate amount by which each group benefited. I don't believe anyone has made the claim that the poor have gotten nothing; only that they have gotten a grossly disproportionate share of growth. Nothing in your article refutes that premise. Indeed, you seem to go out of your way to avoid actually addressing it directly.