> Everyone knows that if you’re in the bottom 50% of households in terms of wealth in this country, you’re essentially screwed. This kind of relative compariso

> Everyone knows that if you’re in the bottom 50% of households in terms of wealth in this country, you’re essentially screwed. This kind of relative comparison has never made sense to me. So if the bottom 50% means 500 sq ft per person, 3k calories, a car, health care, pension et al, then you're still "screwed" because others have 1k sq ft, 5k calories, 2 cars, luxurious health+pension? > The wealth of the bottom half of households has ticked up by $1.4 trillion to $2 trillion, a tiny fraction of the wealth of the 1%. So the bottom 50% now has 333% more wealth than they did 10 yrs ago? This article is only concerned with people getting a bigger _share_ of the pie, not if the pie is growing for all. edit: corrected "bottom 1%" => "bottom 50%" typo