It also seems that the title is misrepresenting the facts. Needing more to reach the top one percent of an arbitrarily separated population should suggest that

It also seems that the title is misrepresenting the facts. Needing more to reach the top one percent of an arbitrarily separated population should suggest that the rest of the population is also benefiting. E.g. if you needed less to join the top 1%, then it could be suggested that the gap is increasing. If you need more... well, it could just as easily follow that the bottom 99% percent have merely moved closer to the top 1%, effectively raising the bar (which, as an arbitrary point, shifts all the time anyways). That said, it could be argued the other way - but the evidence for either direction is lacking. Because the issue is being raised by people who tend to overemphasize inequality, I tend to lean the opposite direction - perhaps we should re-evaluate the way we define upper and lower class.