> I would argue that's not a fair reflection of the actual comparative wealth of the two individuals.
Why not?
Perhaps you believe this, because the Harvard MBA has greater prospects for a high-paying job, or maybe they have a family who will support them until they get a job.
But those pools of wealth are already be measured where they are--the high-paying job is with a company, and that company represents wealth that is controlled by its shareholders, partners, owners, etc. That wealth is accounted for in the measurement. Same with whatever wealth is held by the MBA's family.
Edit: In any case, it's clear where to sort a person with $200k in debt, no matter their future job prospects. They're not in the 1%.
Why not?
Perhaps you believe this, because the Harvard MBA has greater prospects for a high-paying job, or maybe they have a family who will support them until they get a job.
But those pools of wealth are already be measured where they are--the high-paying job is with a company, and that company represents wealth that is controlled by its shareholders, partners, owners, etc. That wealth is accounted for in the measurement. Same with whatever wealth is held by the MBA's family.
Edit: In any case, it's clear where to sort a person with $200k in debt, no matter their future job prospects. They're not in the 1%.