Well, my argument is that most cannot save. Relevant amounts, anyway (a grand a year isn't going to really get you anywhere). Your rebuttal was that the 5th de

Well, my argument is that most cannot save. Relevant amounts, anyway (a grand a year isn't going to really get you anywhere). Your rebuttal was that the 5th decile earning twice as much surely can, because the 1st decile survive by spending less. My argument is that the 5th decile are predominantly in higher cost of living areas and end up in roughly the same situation. But let's just concede and say that they can. No doubt some can - there are people earning median UK wage in the north. The bottom guys still can't save at all. Do they just not matter? Should 10/20/30/40% of the population be stuck renting for their entire lives? Is that reasonable? I am not making the claim that a London worker earning double a Preston worker is a problem. My claim is that people earning far more than that being able to build masses of capital whilst others cannot build capital at all is a problem. It's not really about the numbers at all; it's more the idea that me "owning" 20 homes and forcing others to labour if they want to live in them is OK. I dunno. I kind of don't have enough interest in continuing this, I gain nothing from convincing you. I know people who cannot save, many of them, they exist. They aren't intelligent enough to get out of that hole unless they won a lottery or similar. I don't need to convince you that they exist, because I can like, go and visit them. I want to fix that, you seemingly don't, best of luck.