4 ms·

It's no secret that real wages have remained stagnant for most people for over 40 years [1]. I'm of the school of thought that believes that we're at real risk

by cletus 5y ago

It's no secret that real wages have remained stagnant for most people for over 40 years [1]. I'm of the school of thought that believes that we're at real risk of creating a permanent ruling class and a permanent working class by virtue of massive amounts of inherited wealth. This is what an aristocracy and serfdom looks like. What fascinating to me is how history repeats itself. In the 14th century, the Black Plague devastated Europe. It's impossible to know but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that as much as HALF the population was killed. This created a massive labour shortage after the plague passed, which ironically was a huge boon for workers rights, so much so that King Edward III tried to regulate worker wages in an effort to stop "gouging" [2]. Like pretty much all attempts at price-controls it failed. So here we are almost 700 years later in a pandemic and we may be seeing the first increase in real wages in 40+ years. As an aside, it's so bizarre to me how many ordinary people will jump to the defense of billionaires when it comes to estate taxes. What I think many such people don't seem to understand is that wealth will ultimately get redistributed one way or another. The ultimate forms of wealth distribution are revolution and war and that's really in nobody's best interests. It's actually good for everyone if the masses aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck. [1]: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Labourers_1351 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Labourers_1351

cinquemb 5y ago
> In the 14th century, the Black Plague devastated Europe. It's impossible to know but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that as much as HALF the population was killed. If all the variants are to completely overwhelm all the vaccines and treatments (that did not exist then) to render them all ineffective and create this devastation over the next 100 years, time will only tell if half the world will be killed. As of now, we are pretty far from that (but most of the century from the first cases has yet to play out). > wealth will ultimately get redistributed one way or another. I agree with what you are saying. > The ultimate forms of wealth distribution are revolution and war and that's really in nobody's best interests. I don't necessarily disagree, but is there some kind of shared "best interests" concept that everyone agrees on here that would make the "nobody" true? Are we excluding those who enable war (even to varying degrees) without taking on the higher risk of such (higher share of future resources from those who no longer are around to compete for such, by getting others to take on the higher risk of not being around for such future resources instead of one themselves)? > It's actually good for everyone if the masses aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck. This will be largely bounded by whether any given society has enough resources at its disposal to offer an "acceptable" standard of living, the resources to allocate such standard without squandering it between its intended destination, and the choices individual actors make with the current varying resources they have their disposal (not strictly bounded by the physical, but also by those intangible like "knowledge" of cheaper resource allocation in adverse environments).
- Retric 5y ago
  We are running a global experiment ideally suited to evolving more contagious and deadly strains. [edited] It’s not that social distancing is a problem in the short term, it’s just we kept adjusting it as he’d immunity crept up so only the most infectious strains could survive. Lucky Delta isn’t significantly more deadly than the initial strain, but that mostly comes down to luck. It’s probably going to be ok, but assuming it stays equally as deadly over time is perhaps optimistic.
  - cinquemb 5y ago
    > It’s probably going to be ok, but assuming it stays equally as deadly over time is perhaps optimistic. No where did I make this assumption, or was I alluding that this may be the case. Even in stats you can see cyclic patterns, with case counts and even with Empl-Pop ratio used in the article.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    In no universe will the current pandemic ever get within two orders of magnitude of the death rate from the historical plague.
    - Retric 5y ago
      The Black Death was in Europe for every year from 1346 and 1671 it was only extremely deadly from 1346 to 1353. COVID could mutate in to a much worse variety over that timeframe. Modern medicine can do quite a bit, but it doesn’t handle true plages very well beyond social distancing. If the only way to actually slow transmission was the equivalent of biosafety level 4 or 5 and 1/2 of all infected die without significant medical care, everything falls apart. Even just an unusually long incubation period could be devastating.
      - jkhdigital 5y ago
        Are you telling me that the worst version of the Black Death was 3-4 orders of magnitude more deadly than previous strains? Because that’s what would have to happen to this coronavirus for the scenario you are talking about. If this is even remotely possible, then I assume we should also be worried about the influenza virus, or really any other common household pathogen, because who knows what it could mutate into. Or maybe you should keep your doomsday theories to yourself.
rtpg 5y ago
Nobody understands estate taxes, it's so frustrating. I have had conversations with coworkers who believe that the gov't will ruin you through estate taxes. People don't seem to understand things like (depending on locality): - If you don't have literally $1M in assets you get taxed zero - If you live in the home it is exempted - There can be major deductions The idea that the state comes in and destroys your way of life through estate taxes is an amazing failure of describing how a thing works (right up there with how progressive income taxes work). I mean the fact that everyone's assets are tied up in things like houses doesn't help things, but... yeah.
- supertrope 5y ago
  The anti-estate tax lobby has masterfully branded it a death tax implying that it’s a tax when you die. There’s a huge tax waiver in the form of stepped up cost basis - capital gains tax is calculated using the share value when inherited not on grandpa’s purchase price.
  - votepaunchy 5y ago
    Note that the step-up in basis is something the Biden administration is looking to reduce to $1M/person.
- cletus 5y ago
  > - If you don't have literally $1M in assets you get taxed zero Oh it's much, much worse than that. The Trump tax "cuts" actually doubled the Federal estate tax thresholds to ~$11m for a singled person and ~$22m for married couples. > - If you live in the home it is exempted So I actually have a bit of a problem with this because generally real estate passes to beneficiaries of the estate on a stepped up basis. The idea is for children not to be saddled with a huge tax debt but there has to be limits to this. > ... amazing failure of describing how a thing works I see it from the somewhat opposite view and that is that conservatives in the US at least are so easily manipulated to the point where a seemingly large portion of them now believe democracy isn't working for them and you see this bubbling over at incidents like the attempted insurrection of Jan 6. It's downright ironic that the reddest states are actually the most Federally dependent and the democracy that supposedly isn't working for them is a system that gives such states political power far in excess of their population such that a political party can in many places hold power with ~40% of the vote.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
> I'm of the school of thought that believes that we're at real risk of creating a permanent ruling class and a permanent working class by virtue of massive amounts of inherited wealth. Possibly - but only if the ruling class is very, very small. The top 1% in wealth have $10M. That's enough to draw down ~$450k per year indefinitely (before taxes). As someone who makes that much - it's certainly a lot of money - but far from "ruling". You'll need to get into the top .1% to even remotely resemble "ruling". Quite frankly, I think we'd eat the rich before we let .1%. The top .1% makes ~$1.5M per year (before taxes), and a lot of this still comes from income. More realistically, you need to get to the .01% to have something resembling a "ruling" class.
- foota 5y ago
  Really? If you don't need to work for the rest of your life and can afford to hire multiple staff to work for you that seems like something akin to a minor feudal lord to me.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    It adds up quickly though. After taxes on those revenues you’re looking at $60k/year for each child’s education, $75k for family travel and recreation - with 2 kids you’re at $200k already before considering taxes. Meanwhile club membership can easily reach $30k for family socializing, $10k for home and garden maintenance, in addition to day to day expenses like dining and sports training/dues - easily another $20k annually. Throw in another $40k on property taxes. So you can’t really quit your day job and you’re solidly upper middle class - but it’s not like you’re aren’t still thinking about money or that you’re spending your growth (keep in mind your earning on top of realized investment income is taxed at nearly the highest marginal rates - what legacy will you even have to pass down, especially after estate taxes. Can keep you up at night if the Margeaux didn’t knock you out.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  It’s really news to me that I’m a surf. Here I was thinking that I could choose to work for anybody I wanted to, including myself, or specialize in any line of work I liked. I thought that I had completely freedom to hold my own assets and other property, and use them in any way I choose. But apparently I exist in a state of permanent debt bondage, I am merely a chattel tied to a piece of land, that can be brought and sold by whoever is the master of my liberty. Because that’s what a serfdom is, and according to the most upvoted comment ITT, our modern society significantly resembles a serfdom. Gosh, I really hope that violent revolution they’re talking about happens soon, so that my masters wealth can be fairly redistributed.
adventured 5y ago
> It's no secret that real wages have remained stagnant for most people for over 40 years Real wages haven't remained stagnant. That's one of the great intellectual frauds going in economics. There is a rather incredible failure to account for the dramatic demographic change in the US over the last 40-50 years, which has massively debased what would otherwise be a higher median and average wage, as well as higher figures for the middle class group. How can we see that data in action? Well, other than being obvious and logical given the context, you can see it by looking at the white demographic then vs now. The white demographic that used to represent essentially all of the middle class circa 1970 or 1980, no longer does. The white demographic has moved up in income, while the hispanic demographic has rapidly taken over an ever growing share of the middle class group. You can see this by looking at the white median income vs the national median income, they have diverged, whereas in 1970 or 1980 they were far closer to being the same thing. This effect will get more and more prominent by the decade (see: the latest census). There has been a rather dramatic demographic shift, that has involved tens of millions of poor low skill immigrants from primarily Latin America moving to the US and having to start from near zero economically (very little education, very little in the way of higher value skills, and often not knowing English). It can take a long time to build higher income levels or wealth from scratch, in a country entirely foreign to you, and when you likely don't even speak the country's dominant language. This has all happened while simultaneosly the primary middle class group of the past, the white demographic, has seen a record low population expansion over the last few decades. What does that mean? It means the newer hispanic demographic is that much more impactful on the median and middle class figures that are so often referenced, than otherwise would have been the case had white demographic expansion trends continued from the 1970s or 1980s. The clowns in economics go about pretending the US of 1970 is the same US of today, that nothing has changed demographically, that there has been no mass immigration from Latin American nations over the last four decades, and that that doesn't considerably debase the middle class income figures or the median figures. When one talks about how wages have performed over decades, accordingly, you have to ask: for which groups? Because the demographics of the US have changed considerably in 40-50 years. You have to know the story you're inspecting. So a white middle class family from 1970 or 1980, how are they doing now? Have they seen progress? Has their wealth and income climbed? (yes, the figures we have say it very likely has) A poor immigrant from Latin America that arrived in the US in 1994 with $0 and little education - if they're now in the US middle class, that's a good outcome from where they started from. How about second generation Americans whose parents were from Latin America and were part of that major immigration trend? If their parents arrived with little or nothing, how is the second generation doing, how does that progress look? You can't just say: oh but eg middle class wages haven't moved in real-terms in 40 years. That's very badly dropping context. The US hasn't been static over that time. You have to understand what the story of the people you're talking about is; who are you talking about? If your median numbers tread water in real-terms while you bring in tens of millions of poor low skill immigrants, you're seeing a remarkably positive outcome in fact.
jkhdigital 5y ago
You didn’t explicitly make this argument, but it sounds like you believe estate taxes are a feasible and effective way to redistribute accumulated wealth that would forestall a “torches and pitchforks” historical moment. I… don’t see any evidence to believe this would be the case. Also, you’re comparing a historical pandemic that killed possibly half of the world’s (edit: Europe’s) population to the present pandemic which has killed 0.06% of the world population, at least 2/3 of whom were beyond normal working age. Sorry, I don’t see the connection.
- cletus 5y ago
  Estate taxes are ineffective as written at least right now in the US because they're too easy to avoid. But the idea of avoiding massive generational wealth is really what's key. It's just bad for society. As for the Covid-19 vs the Black Plague, the similarity isn't in raw deaths (obviously). It's more that the plague (and possibly Covid) was a massive triggering event for social change and structural changes to the labour market. The last year and a half has taught us that going into the office is, for the most part, a fucking pointless waste of time at best and simply a means of exercising control at worst, for a huge chunk of the jobs out there. So you're seeing now a lot of pressure on wages as a result of increased labour mobility (effectively). Whether or not this is temporary remains to be seen. The optimist in me hopes it isn't temporary and it's part of a larger shift towards worker rights and living conditions.
Aunche 5y ago
As you alluded to with the Black Plague, wages are simply a product of supply and demand. There is no conspiracy of the ruling class trying to fix wages, and any attempt at one would fail miserably. In the past 40 years, billions of people from developed countries were introduced to the global labor market, which formerly mostly consisted of residents of developed countries.
- kongin 5y ago
  I'm sorry but what do you call the lords of the realm coming together to outlaw workers getting paid higher wages if not a conspiracy?
closeparen 5y ago
The image of a leisure-class aristocrat with a family fortune is kind of a misdirect for what's actually happening. In the 1% and the top marginal tax rates you're mostly going to find FAANG drones. Maybe a few other species of college-educated workers whose wages pay their mortgages on ordinary homes in coastal cities. I think the "aristocrat" characterization is actively harmful. For one thing, it makes the FAANG drones fail to realize that if "the rich" is anyone, it's them. And for another, it makes the top seem much more distant than it really is. If a Wisconsinite in the 55th percentile spent a few days inhabiting the home and the routine of a Californian or New Yorker in the 98th percentile, I think he would primarily notice how small and shabby the house is, and how unpleasant the commute. I'm not sure he would even elect to keep it. Many of us that do get from here to there, end up turning back. While you may as well tax inheritances, that's not really how advantages get passed down. It's things like vocabularies and school districts.
- nradov 5y ago
  In the 1% and top marginal tax rates you're going to find a lot of professionals (doctors, lawyers) and small business owners who work a lot harder than any FAANG drone.

by cletus 5y ago

cinquemb 5y ago

> In the 14th century, the Black Plague devastated Europe. It's impossible to know but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that as much as HALF the population was killed. If all the variants are to completely overwhelm all the vaccines and treatments (that did not exist then) to render them all ineffective and create this devastation over the next 100 years, time will only tell if half the world will be killed. As of now, we are pretty far from that (but most of the century from the first cases has yet to play out). > wealth will ultimately get redistributed one way or another. I agree with what you are saying. > The ultimate forms of wealth distribution are revolution and war and that's really in nobody's best interests. I don't necessarily disagree, but is there some kind of shared "best interests" concept that everyone agrees on here that would make the "nobody" true? Are we excluding those who enable war (even to varying degrees) without taking on the higher risk of such (higher share of future resources from those who no longer are around to compete for such, by getting others to take on the higher risk of not being around for such future resources instead of one themselves)? > It's actually good for everyone if the masses aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck. This will be largely bounded by whether any given society has enough resources at its disposal to offer an "acceptable" standard of living, the resources to allocate such standard without squandering it between its intended destination, and the choices individual actors make with the current varying resources they have their disposal (not strictly bounded by the physical, but also by those intangible like "knowledge" of cheaper resource allocation in adverse environments).

Retric 5y ago
We are running a global experiment ideally suited to evolving more contagious and deadly strains. [edited] It’s not that social distancing is a problem in the short term, it’s just we kept adjusting it as he’d immunity crept up so only the most infectious strains could survive. Lucky Delta isn’t significantly more deadly than the initial strain, but that mostly comes down to luck. It’s probably going to be ok, but assuming it stays equally as deadly over time is perhaps optimistic.
- cinquemb 5y ago
  > It’s probably going to be ok, but assuming it stays equally as deadly over time is perhaps optimistic. No where did I make this assumption, or was I alluding that this may be the case. Even in stats you can see cyclic patterns, with case counts and even with Empl-Pop ratio used in the article.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  In no universe will the current pandemic ever get within two orders of magnitude of the death rate from the historical plague.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The Black Death was in Europe for every year from 1346 and 1671 it was only extremely deadly from 1346 to 1353. COVID could mutate in to a much worse variety over that timeframe. Modern medicine can do quite a bit, but it doesn’t handle true plages very well beyond social distancing. If the only way to actually slow transmission was the equivalent of biosafety level 4 or 5 and 1/2 of all infected die without significant medical care, everything falls apart. Even just an unusually long incubation period could be devastating.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      Are you telling me that the worst version of the Black Death was 3-4 orders of magnitude more deadly than previous strains? Because that’s what would have to happen to this coronavirus for the scenario you are talking about. If this is even remotely possible, then I assume we should also be worried about the influenza virus, or really any other common household pathogen, because who knows what it could mutate into. Or maybe you should keep your doomsday theories to yourself.

rtpg 5y ago

Nobody understands estate taxes, it's so frustrating. I have had conversations with coworkers who believe that the gov't will ruin you through estate taxes. People don't seem to understand things like (depending on locality): - If you don't have literally $1M in assets you get taxed zero - If you live in the home it is exempted - There can be major deductions The idea that the state comes in and destroys your way of life through estate taxes is an amazing failure of describing how a thing works (right up there with how progressive income taxes work). I mean the fact that everyone's assets are tied up in things like houses doesn't help things, but... yeah.

supertrope 5y ago
The anti-estate tax lobby has masterfully branded it a death tax implying that it’s a tax when you die. There’s a huge tax waiver in the form of stepped up cost basis - capital gains tax is calculated using the share value when inherited not on grandpa’s purchase price.
- votepaunchy 5y ago
  Note that the step-up in basis is something the Biden administration is looking to reduce to $1M/person.
cletus 5y ago
> - If you don't have literally $1M in assets you get taxed zero Oh it's much, much worse than that. The Trump tax "cuts" actually doubled the Federal estate tax thresholds to ~$11m for a singled person and ~$22m for married couples. > - If you live in the home it is exempted So I actually have a bit of a problem with this because generally real estate passes to beneficiaries of the estate on a stepped up basis. The idea is for children not to be saddled with a huge tax debt but there has to be limits to this. > ... amazing failure of describing how a thing works I see it from the somewhat opposite view and that is that conservatives in the US at least are so easily manipulated to the point where a seemingly large portion of them now believe democracy isn't working for them and you see this bubbling over at incidents like the attempted insurrection of Jan 6. It's downright ironic that the reddest states are actually the most Federally dependent and the democracy that supposedly isn't working for them is a system that gives such states political power far in excess of their population such that a political party can in many places hold power with ~40% of the vote.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

> I'm of the school of thought that believes that we're at real risk of creating a permanent ruling class and a permanent working class by virtue of massive amounts of inherited wealth. Possibly - but only if the ruling class is very, very small. The top 1% in wealth have $10M. That's enough to draw down ~$450k per year indefinitely (before taxes). As someone who makes that much - it's certainly a lot of money - but far from "ruling". You'll need to get into the top .1% to even remotely resemble "ruling". Quite frankly, I think we'd eat the rich before we let .1%. The top .1% makes ~$1.5M per year (before taxes), and a lot of this still comes from income. More realistically, you need to get to the .01% to have something resembling a "ruling" class.

foota 5y ago
Really? If you don't need to work for the rest of your life and can afford to hire multiple staff to work for you that seems like something akin to a minor feudal lord to me.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  It adds up quickly though. After taxes on those revenues you’re looking at $60k/year for each child’s education, $75k for family travel and recreation - with 2 kids you’re at $200k already before considering taxes. Meanwhile club membership can easily reach $30k for family socializing, $10k for home and garden maintenance, in addition to day to day expenses like dining and sports training/dues - easily another $20k annually. Throw in another $40k on property taxes. So you can’t really quit your day job and you’re solidly upper middle class - but it’s not like you’re aren’t still thinking about money or that you’re spending your growth (keep in mind your earning on top of realized investment income is taxed at nearly the highest marginal rates - what legacy will you even have to pass down, especially after estate taxes. Can keep you up at night if the Margeaux didn’t knock you out.
AmericanChopper 5y ago
It’s really news to me that I’m a surf. Here I was thinking that I could choose to work for anybody I wanted to, including myself, or specialize in any line of work I liked. I thought that I had completely freedom to hold my own assets and other property, and use them in any way I choose. But apparently I exist in a state of permanent debt bondage, I am merely a chattel tied to a piece of land, that can be brought and sold by whoever is the master of my liberty. Because that’s what a serfdom is, and according to the most upvoted comment ITT, our modern society significantly resembles a serfdom. Gosh, I really hope that violent revolution they’re talking about happens soon, so that my masters wealth can be fairly redistributed.

adventured 5y ago

> It's no secret that real wages have remained stagnant for most people for over 40 years Real wages haven't remained stagnant. That's one of the great intellectual frauds going in economics. There is a rather incredible failure to account for the dramatic demographic change in the US over the last 40-50 years, which has massively debased what would otherwise be a higher median and average wage, as well as higher figures for the middle class group. How can we see that data in action? Well, other than being obvious and logical given the context, you can see it by looking at the white demographic then vs now. The white demographic that used to represent essentially all of the middle class circa 1970 or 1980, no longer does. The white demographic has moved up in income, while the hispanic demographic has rapidly taken over an ever growing share of the middle class group. You can see this by looking at the white median income vs the national median income, they have diverged, whereas in 1970 or 1980 they were far closer to being the same thing. This effect will get more and more prominent by the decade (see: the latest census). There has been a rather dramatic demographic shift, that has involved tens of millions of poor low skill immigrants from primarily Latin America moving to the US and having to start from near zero economically (very little education, very little in the way of higher value skills, and often not knowing English). It can take a long time to build higher income levels or wealth from scratch, in a country entirely foreign to you, and when you likely don't even speak the country's dominant language. This has all happened while simultaneosly the primary middle class group of the past, the white demographic, has seen a record low population expansion over the last few decades. What does that mean? It means the newer hispanic demographic is that much more impactful on the median and middle class figures that are so often referenced, than otherwise would have been the case had white demographic expansion trends continued from the 1970s or 1980s. The clowns in economics go about pretending the US of 1970 is the same US of today, that nothing has changed demographically, that there has been no mass immigration from Latin American nations over the last four decades, and that that doesn't considerably debase the middle class income figures or the median figures. When one talks about how wages have performed over decades, accordingly, you have to ask: for which groups? Because the demographics of the US have changed considerably in 40-50 years. You have to know the story you're inspecting. So a white middle class family from 1970 or 1980, how are they doing now? Have they seen progress? Has their wealth and income climbed? (yes, the figures we have say it very likely has) A poor immigrant from Latin America that arrived in the US in 1994 with $0 and little education - if they're now in the US middle class, that's a good outcome from where they started from. How about second generation Americans whose parents were from Latin America and were part of that major immigration trend? If their parents arrived with little or nothing, how is the second generation doing, how does that progress look? You can't just say: oh but eg middle class wages haven't moved in real-terms in 40 years. That's very badly dropping context. The US hasn't been static over that time. You have to understand what the story of the people you're talking about is; who are you talking about? If your median numbers tread water in real-terms while you bring in tens of millions of poor low skill immigrants, you're seeing a remarkably positive outcome in fact.

jkhdigital 5y ago

You didn’t explicitly make this argument, but it sounds like you believe estate taxes are a feasible and effective way to redistribute accumulated wealth that would forestall a “torches and pitchforks” historical moment. I… don’t see any evidence to believe this would be the case. Also, you’re comparing a historical pandemic that killed possibly half of the world’s (edit: Europe’s) population to the present pandemic which has killed 0.06% of the world population, at least 2/3 of whom were beyond normal working age. Sorry, I don’t see the connection.

cletus 5y ago
Estate taxes are ineffective as written at least right now in the US because they're too easy to avoid. But the idea of avoiding massive generational wealth is really what's key. It's just bad for society. As for the Covid-19 vs the Black Plague, the similarity isn't in raw deaths (obviously). It's more that the plague (and possibly Covid) was a massive triggering event for social change and structural changes to the labour market. The last year and a half has taught us that going into the office is, for the most part, a fucking pointless waste of time at best and simply a means of exercising control at worst, for a huge chunk of the jobs out there. So you're seeing now a lot of pressure on wages as a result of increased labour mobility (effectively). Whether or not this is temporary remains to be seen. The optimist in me hopes it isn't temporary and it's part of a larger shift towards worker rights and living conditions.

Aunche 5y ago

As you alluded to with the Black Plague, wages are simply a product of supply and demand. There is no conspiracy of the ruling class trying to fix wages, and any attempt at one would fail miserably. In the past 40 years, billions of people from developed countries were introduced to the global labor market, which formerly mostly consisted of residents of developed countries.

kongin 5y ago
I'm sorry but what do you call the lords of the realm coming together to outlaw workers getting paid higher wages if not a conspiracy?

closeparen 5y ago

The image of a leisure-class aristocrat with a family fortune is kind of a misdirect for what's actually happening. In the 1% and the top marginal tax rates you're mostly going to find FAANG drones. Maybe a few other species of college-educated workers whose wages pay their mortgages on ordinary homes in coastal cities. I think the "aristocrat" characterization is actively harmful. For one thing, it makes the FAANG drones fail to realize that if "the rich" is anyone, it's them. And for another, it makes the top seem much more distant than it really is. If a Wisconsinite in the 55th percentile spent a few days inhabiting the home and the routine of a Californian or New Yorker in the 98th percentile, I think he would primarily notice how small and shabby the house is, and how unpleasant the commute. I'm not sure he would even elect to keep it. Many of us that do get from here to there, end up turning back. While you may as well tax inheritances, that's not really how advantages get passed down. It's things like vocabularies and school districts.

nradov 5y ago
In the 1% and top marginal tax rates you're going to find a lot of professionals (doctors, lawyers) and small business owners who work a lot harder than any FAANG drone.