4 ms·

Exactly. Also you have to remember that some people are older than others. If everyone properly planned for their own retirement, then 65-year-olds would own >8

by db48x 6y ago

Exactly. Also you have to remember that some people are older than others. If everyone properly planned for their own retirement, then 65-year-olds would own >80% of all assets in the country, even if everyone had the same earnings for their entire life. Then over the rest of their life they would sell off those assets to pay for their daily expenses and travel while retired. The buyers would all be young people saving up for retirement. Wealth inequality is the least surprising thing ever. But most people don't ever do math, so it makes for good clickbait.

harimau777 6y ago
Many people don't ever have the opportunity or training to properly plan for retirement.
- icedchai 6y ago
  "The Millionaire Next Door" should be required reading in high school.
Scandiravian 6y ago
You write about a system that doesn't exist (everyone earning the same), then point out that wealth inequality is not surprising and that articles like this "makes for good clickbait", but what's your point? Is it that we should simply ignore wealth inequality and the societal issues it generates?
- db48x 6y ago
  The point is that wealth inequality would still exist, even if every person in the world earned the same amount in their lifetime. The equality of outcomes of giving everyone the same amount of money would not lead to the equality of outcomes of everyone having the same amount of wealth. You can only get wealth equality by taking away wealth from everyone. That's not going to fix any "societal issues", it will simply cause more problems. See also all past attempts.
  - newfeatureok 6y ago
    I don’t see your point at all - even if you were to control for any age of your choosing I’m sure you’d still see similar distributions. Your last point also requires some evidence since it is extreme.
  - Scandiravian 6y ago
    No one has at any point said that the goal is for everyone to have the same amount of wealth, so I'm not going to argue against, what's clearly a straw-man For your last point I'll have to go with a "citation needed" The Scandinavian countries and many other European countries in general, have a high level of wealth redistribution and have higher education levels, higher voter turnout, less crime, and higher standards of living than the US

by db48x 6y ago

harimau777 6y ago

Many people don't ever have the opportunity or training to properly plan for retirement.

icedchai 6y ago
"The Millionaire Next Door" should be required reading in high school.

Scandiravian 6y ago

You write about a system that doesn't exist (everyone earning the same), then point out that wealth inequality is not surprising and that articles like this "makes for good clickbait", but what's your point? Is it that we should simply ignore wealth inequality and the societal issues it generates?

db48x 6y ago
The point is that wealth inequality would still exist, even if every person in the world earned the same amount in their lifetime. The equality of outcomes of giving everyone the same amount of money would not lead to the equality of outcomes of everyone having the same amount of wealth. You can only get wealth equality by taking away wealth from everyone. That's not going to fix any "societal issues", it will simply cause more problems. See also all past attempts.
- newfeatureok 6y ago
  I don’t see your point at all - even if you were to control for any age of your choosing I’m sure you’d still see similar distributions. Your last point also requires some evidence since it is extreme.
- Scandiravian 6y ago
  No one has at any point said that the goal is for everyone to have the same amount of wealth, so I'm not going to argue against, what's clearly a straw-man For your last point I'll have to go with a "citation needed" The Scandinavian countries and many other European countries in general, have a high level of wealth redistribution and have higher education levels, higher voter turnout, less crime, and higher standards of living than the US