Top 1%? How disingenuous can you be, that's made up of the top 0.01% who own 30% of the top 1%'s wealth alone [1]

[1] https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never...

I agree. I just didn't have the stats to back me up when I wrote that. You are talking about wealth and not stocks, but you make the same point that I'm trying to make, which is that, top x% can be very misleading and clickbaity if you ignore the extreme inequality at the very top and can push the narrative in a direction that's not helpful. Thank you for bringing that up. I'd not be surprised it like 100 people in the country own 20% of all the stocks.

The top 10% is not a static category. People move in and out all the time as a result of ordinary life changes (rising income as you enter prime working years, selling assets to buy a house, selling a house, job loss, etc.).

It doesn't really make sense to be mad at the 10%, because it will probably include you or others in your family unless you are really stuck.

And there are a lot of people who are stuck. Let's not diminish that. But we will never address that if we are conflating them with young people who just happen to have a low income today but have every reason to see themselves in the middle class.

> People move in and out all the time as a result of ordinary life changes (rising income as you enter prime working years, selling assets to buy a house, selling a house, job loss, etc.).

The article refers to the top 10% wealthiest, everything you mentioned is related to income.

oh yea i saw this recently too. here is one from last week that was making the rounds.

"The problem with America’s semi-rich" https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22673605/upper-middle-class-me...