3 ms·
the top 1% have nearly as much income as the bottom 80% https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:146;series:Net%20worth
by micromacrofoot 4mo ago
the top 1% have nearly as much income as the bottom 80%
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:146;series:Net%20worth;demographic:income;population:all;units:levels https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
- gruez 4mo ago>the top 1% have nearly as much income as the bottom 80% >link for "Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989" income =/= wealth
- digitaltrees 4mo agoI don’t think that makes the argument you think it does. Wealth concentration is even more extreme.
- gruez 4mo agoThe point is that his original claim is either incorrect, or is not supported by the source he cited.
- digitaltrees 4mo agoThat doesn’t logically follow. If the claim is 1% control 80%. And the counter argument is wealth is different than income the implication is that wealth inequality is 1) lower than income inequality and 2) more important for some unspecified reason. But if wealth inequality is more extreme then that means 1% control GREATER than 80% of wealth. So point 1 is false. And point 2 is most likely irrelevant because greater concentration likely means whatever harm from one category would track the other category
- porridgeraisin 4mo agoBigger picture truths don't justify smaller picture lies.
- micromacrofoot 4mo agoThe linked view of the chart is distributed by income percentile, the title is "Wealth by income percentile"
- gruez 4mo ago>The linked view of the chart is distributed by income percentile, the title is "Wealth by income percentile" That's still measuring wealth, not income. The correct statement to draw from the chart is that top 1% by income have nearly as much wealth as the bottom 80%.
- micromacrofoot 4mo agothe only difference is whether or not its realized, no? they're using wealth to avoid that