Immigrants, boomers and technology are convenient scapegoats for declining wealth. Technology is particularly favored in the media because it sounds vaguely plausible if you don't look too closely and being anti-technology makes you look ridiculous.
The 0.1% and their media naturally aren't going to blame themselves, or their trade agreements, or their lobbyists, or their wall street.
I wonder what the math is on the 0.1%'s money. If the 0.1% became significantly more generous with their money, how much would that actually benefit everyone else?
When that article laid out that it was talking about a survey I sat down and thought about what kind of distribution there likely is. My first guess was:
f(x) = 500 / (1-x)
where x is 0..1 (excl. 1), 0 being the poorest person and the one right before 1 the richest.
This yields 88.8% being owned by the richest 20% when using 1mio slices (the only reason I'm not trying to integrate symbolically is that I'm too lazy to try to revive my college math skills).
This is strikingly close to the 84% that the article claims is reality.
So, what's wrong with this then now?
The journalist writes that it "should" be different but doesn't provide for an explanation that says why the distribution should be following a different mathematical formula (and which).
Thanks for your reply. You're giving me some food for thought.
To be clear, I'm poor, i.e. I've failed both at wealth creation and ownership so far. I'll think about how (much) wealth creation can 'distort' the geometric formula.
The 0.1% and their media naturally aren't going to blame themselves, or their trade agreements, or their lobbyists, or their wall street.