From the New York Times:
- Money is not the only metric for measuring life outcomes. Charts and articles like this seem to reflect an inappropriate obsession with narrowly materialist values.
- If you do want to measure your life with money, it looks like the 99th percentile is where you want to be. Why aren’t you there? Why aren’t you a CEO? Why aren’t you making a million a year? If you can’t figure out how to get there, don’t begrudge the people who did figure it out. If you don’t have the education, motivation, intelligence or skills to get there, don’t begrudge those who do.
- The amount of wealth is not a fixed amount. It’s not a zero-sum game. If it were, it would be concerning that a few people are very wealthy. But it isn’t.
- The distribution of income has to be skewed to the right because income is bounded on the low end by zero but not limited on the upside.
- If you can’t imagine why income inequality exists, consider that 25 percent of Americans think the sun goes around the earth.
- If you can’t imagine why income inequality exists, consider that half the residents of Detroit can’t read.
- People who get upset at the realization that some other people have more than they do make excellent targets for politicians who promise, in return for your vote, to rob the people you envy.
- Winners may have more money but losers get more hugs.
- I see a lot of articles about income inequality but I don’t meet a lot of ordinary Americans who are concerned about it.
- There seems to be a confusion of cause and effect. Did income rise the fastest for people in the top one percent or did people get into the top one percent because their income rose the fastest? If that isn’t clear, consider an example: Did Mark Zuckerberg’s income go way up because he was on the right side of that chart or is he on the right side of the chart because his income went way up?