You are woefully misinformed if you think wealth inequality has only been around for 100-150 years.
>statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there.
That’s not true though. A non-negligible portion of the richest people are first generation. And again, of course most of the 99% will stay in the 99% because math. Even with a complete turnover in one year, 98% didn’t move.
>deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?
It’s not propaganda when it comes mostly from the people on the left using it to argue for higher income taxes. Higher income taxes are an attack on income inequality, not wealth inequality. You might think it’s propaganda, but it would behoove you to listen to people on the left to hear what they are proposing.
Wealth inequality is not about income is it?
>doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations
So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed?
>The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%.
The statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there.
>When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst.
What part of "wealth inequality" would make you think repeating a deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?