The research has shown multiple other ways to reach the current results without r>g (housing stock is one method, if I recall) and authors have shown r>g leads

The research has shown multiple other ways to reach the current results without r>g (housing stock is one method, if I recall) and authors have shown r>g leads to results we do not see. Thus it’s not true to claim existence of rich people implies r>g. If it were that simple people before Piketty would have reached that conclusion earlier. The papers linked in this thread show the flaws. It’s also the case the rich don’t get richer, if you mean a rich person gets richer. For any dataset where you can track rich individuals over time, pick a level you call rich, track everyone meeting that definition, and you find they get poorer, reverting to mean. That is why most millionaires are first gen. It’s why the Forbes 400 is mostly first gen; the rich that were top 400 lose wealth. It’s why St. Louis Fed has papers showing the majority of the top quintile or the top 1% are not there 10 years later, or from generation to generation. Sure some rich keep wealth. But for any level called rich, if you track all those in it, that group mostly falls out.