This comment is getting downvoted for its rhetorical nature, but I think that each point is worth addressing. - The first point is missing the point, because i

This comment is getting downvoted for its rhetorical nature, but I think that each point is worth addressing. - The first point is missing the point, because it is ignoring the Simpson's paradox critique that a few users have already pointed out. It's possible for global wealth inequality to decrease, while at exactly the same time, wealth inequality within nations is increasing. Wealth inequality in the US is growing, and has been, for some time now. Nobody in this thread is disputing that. - I am on board with the second point. The user that JSavageOne is responding to is pulling a bait-and-switch. They wrote that "Lack of property or wealth also doesn't imply 'serfdom'", and then followed it up with a paragraph explaining why real estate is a bad investment. They never said anything about wealth. But lack of wealth is basically serfdom by definition. Before you start strawmaning me, I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to be Warren Buffet to qualify as a non-serf. I mean something like this: if you A) Don't own anything and B) Don't make enough money to save in eg a 401k (this is a form of wealth) you are in a precarious situation. Whether or not we want to call it "serfdom" is just a matter of semantics. Moreover, I think that society should be trying to minimize the number of people in the situation. (Aside: I recently relocated to Sweden and I find the pension system here impressive. Making it easy (and in fact, mandatory) for people to start locking up money in index funds feels like a realistic, if imperfect, way to level the playing field in a world where wealth, and not income, is how you make money.)