> Obviously this is a convoluted scenario, but for me, it seems this example punches a huge logical hole in the r vs g thing. Inequality seems to have more to d

> Obviously this is a convoluted scenario, but for me, it seems this example punches a huge logical hole in the r vs g thing. Inequality seems to have more to do with personal savings rate than r>g. And note - its WEALTH inequality that rises, not consumption inequality (in that case, does it even matter?). Consider the person who makes 50K a year. Or the person with 10M capital. It should be increasingly clear that "personal savings rate" alone is going to have an exceptionally hard time to overcome those starting points. Especially if the wealthier people don't dramatically fuck up and spend >100% of income... But even in your initial situation, yes, the difference between wealth inequality and consumption inequality is crucial. Person A has limited options to maintain that lifestyle. Maybe their boss is abusive but they haven't gotten any other job offers that pay the same. Maybe they have to commute 2 hours a day and can't spend time with their kids. And so, then, is the difference in time inequality. You have one person who's working full time to make their living, and other who is not working at all.