4 ms·

You were so close. On page 6 as you mention he defined his FR term, but he also defined 'net worth' explicitly including real estate and housing. In fact it's t

by evilos 6y ago

You were so close. On page 6 as you mention he defined his FR term, but he also defined 'net worth' explicitly including real estate and housing. In fact it's the first thing on the page so I don't know how you missed it. And the original quote used net worth, not FR. He also gives a figure for FR, which is even higher at 46% vs 40% for net worth (owned by top 1%). So it seems you are not well versed in this man's research at all.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
>So it seems you are not well versed in this man's research at all. Enough to know that most all of his claims are always at the outer bounds of research. He is an outlier, and nearly every time someone cites some inequality quote that is supposed to make it seem outrageous, the source is Wolff. As such, I rarely dig through every sentence of his papers, since when I do, and compare them to the outstanding literature, I find at every turn his calculations are done to maximize inequality. No other researcher I've seen in this field obtain his claims. Here [1] for example is another source that replaces Wolff's 46% with 39%. Here's the Minneapolis Fed with [2] the same value under 40% (and they make the interesting point that even with the 1% completely removed, that the next 9 % still has a large amount - so do we torch them next after the 1% is handled?) There are ample others even lower. To paraphrase you, "it seems you're not well versed in the research in this field." If you were, you'd not cite Wolff as evidence. I'll leave it to you to discover why Wolff is an outlier. You may as well quote the rare atmospheric scientist that claims there is no global warming or Dr. Wakefield on vaccines causing autism if you're this willing to believe things that suit your agenda without looking at the broader field. [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide... [2] https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-institute/iwp9.pdf https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-inst...

by evilos 6y ago

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>So it seems you are not well versed in this man's research at all. Enough to know that most all of his claims are always at the outer bounds of research. He is an outlier, and nearly every time someone cites some inequality quote that is supposed to make it seem outrageous, the source is Wolff. As such, I rarely dig through every sentence of his papers, since when I do, and compare them to the outstanding literature, I find at every turn his calculations are done to maximize inequality. No other researcher I've seen in this field obtain his claims. Here [1] for example is another source that replaces Wolff's 46% with 39%. Here's the Minneapolis Fed with [2] the same value under 40% (and they make the interesting point that even with the 1% completely removed, that the next 9 % still has a large amount - so do we torch them next after the 1% is handled?) There are ample others even lower. To paraphrase you, "it seems you're not well versed in the research in this field." If you were, you'd not cite Wolff as evidence. I'll leave it to you to discover why Wolff is an outlier. You may as well quote the rare atmospheric scientist that claims there is no global warming or Dr. Wakefield on vaccines causing autism if you're this willing to believe things that suit your agenda without looking at the broader field. [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide... [2] https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-institute/iwp9.pdf https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-inst...