Yes, I can. That's the point -- the rich and poor are far more visually distinct today. Take for example obesity/overweight and marriage status. The poor are far more likely to have both an elevated BMI and to be single parents / divorced / never married
Our kids got involved in some activities (e.g., violin lessons) that are almost exclusively the domain of the upper middle class. I remember attending a large group recital with maybe 100 kids, and virtually none of them were obese.
they are poor. they don't go to events or extracurricular classes...those cost money.
That is one narrative - the stepford wife vs the welfare mom, the soylent drinking tech worker vs the beer drinking factory worker. True to some extent.
But it was Taleb in Antifragile that noted in a room full of banking exec and policy guys, only the wait staff will exude physical dignity. I think you can extend that observation further and see the lower working class (like waiters, personal trainers) opening up an appearance advantage on the upper intellectual class (lab rats and office workaholics). Not so for the true elite though - vc's, celeb's, etc.
To generalize: The comfortable and sedentary elite have an advantage of appearance over the comfortable and sedentary poor. But being poor and trying to escape it is a more healthy lifestyle than to be upper middle class and try to escape into the elite.
----
No, the article states that the average wealth of the 9.9% is 1.2m. This is of course heavily influenced by people at in the top 1%; people in the 10th percentile are not all millionaires.
I think the author’s intent was to acknowledge privilege, but the article is just making more weird caricatures. I think it’s better to put a spotlight on particular ways people might not be able to advance themselves as much as the usual narrative would suggest.