I agree with a lot of points but... just want to note that you are referring to 1% income levels in your article, not wealth levels. Those are wildly different things. It's quite possible to earn a lot at some point in your life, temporarily being a top-earner in the country. Winning a lottery, cashing out capital gains on home equity or a business sale can do that. Or even having a really good year in a good job. The threshold is $390k of income in a year.
But that's an entirely different notion from becoming part of the top 1% richest people in the country.
Now, income inequality tends not to matter too much beyond a certain figure. At some point, which is far below the 1% level, you get marginal returns to your income in terms of quality of life.
However, wealth is different in that it affords so much power, which isn't compatible with democratic ideals where everyone's voice or vote is approximately equal. When 1% of the population holds 40% of the ownership and shareholder votes of all companies, land, factories etc, that can be problematic. And it is worsening.
Again, I'm not terribly concerned and I don't see wealth inequality as inherently dangerous, but it is a problem and it isn't getting any better.
Your critique of my post is valid and I agree with it, but I'm not sure my ultimate point is diminished. From what I've read, wealth and income mobility are correlated, if over longer timelines. Finding good statistics on wealth mobility over time on a global scale is hard, but I've yet to see any reason to believe they don't correlate with income mobility.
And it makes sense if you look at the tippy top of the wealthy as an illustration: In nominal dollars, Bezos is less wealthy than Walton was less wealthy than Rockefeller, and Bezos is a major beneficiary of globalization.
Rockefeller had an outsized influence on American politics because his wealth was chiefly American.
Bezos, on the other hand, to hold his wealth incumbency needs to influence politics in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the UK, the EU, Japan and China.
Globalization definitely allows the rich to reach newer heights, but it also diffuses their influence and spreads their power thin.
But that's an entirely different notion from becoming part of the top 1% richest people in the country.
Here's a graph on how wealth inequality is far worse than income inequality: http://inequality.comm.ccsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/I...
Now, income inequality tends not to matter too much beyond a certain figure. At some point, which is far below the 1% level, you get marginal returns to your income in terms of quality of life.
However, wealth is different in that it affords so much power, which isn't compatible with democratic ideals where everyone's voice or vote is approximately equal. When 1% of the population holds 40% of the ownership and shareholder votes of all companies, land, factories etc, that can be problematic. And it is worsening.
Again, I'm not terribly concerned and I don't see wealth inequality as inherently dangerous, but it is a problem and it isn't getting any better.