59 ms·

I first really liked the athlete example, but now think that that also depends on where the athlete is in their career and what they have done with their past i

I first really liked the athlete example, but now think that that also depends on where the athlete is in their career and what they have done with their past income. A athlete a little bit later in their career, should have substantial investments unless that more than make up for the inflation impacting the value of their current salary. They probably also have a steady stream of sponsorship deals that get (re-)negotiated more frequently than salary at McDonald's Very similar dynamics probably hold almost by definition for anyone who is wealthy.

RC_ITR 4y ago
>A athlete a little bit later in their career, should have substantial investments Yes, that makes them a capital owner, but it's hard to make a metaphor where people aren't allowed to buy stocks with their excess money. >They probably also have a steady stream of sponsorship deals that get (re-)negotiated more frequently than salary at McDonald's Sure, but that still makes them worse off than a capital owner. >Very similar dynamics probably hold almost by definition for anyone who is wealthy. Sure, but a relatively low-wealth landlord is hurt less than a wealthy banker who consumes most of their salary. That's the only point- that it's more than rich/poor, even if the true nuance is correlated to rich/poor.