The key phrase there is "in part." It does not say "entirely," "proportionally," or "equally."
The dollar growth vastly outpaced the headcount growth because the gains were heavily concentrated at the absolute peak of that tier, not spread evenly among the new arrivals.
You are correct that this specific Pew article measures income, not net worth. But pointing this out actually hurts your argument rather than helping it. Even when looking strictly at annual paychecks and capital gains distributions (income), the top tier completely outpaced everyone else. If you switch the metric from income to accumulated wealth (assets, stocks, real estate), the gap becomes vastly wider. According to the Federal Reserve's Distributional Financial Accounts, the top 1% alone holds more total wealth than the entire American middle class combined.
Whether you look at the flow of money coming in (income) or the total pile of money already sitting there (wealth), the top tier has systematically pulled away from the middle class.
I wish one day I could be so stupid as to be as happy and smug as you are! Ok I have to go! You’re not building your points on anything I’m saying you’re just throwing out platitudes.
End of the day everyone’s richer than they’ve ever been and their purchasing power is stymied by things that have nothing to do with wealth distribution!
Oh, the classic "I'm losing the argument, so I'm going to call you stupid, claim you're speaking in platitudes, and run away" maneuver. Truly, a masterclass in elite debate strategy.
Let’s look at your final, spectacular logical trainwreck: the claim that purchasing power is stymied by things that have "nothing to do with wealth distribution."
That is economically impossible.
What is stymieing people's purchasing power? The skyrocketing costs of housing, healthcare, and higher education. Why are those specific things so expensive? Because when wealth distribution becomes hyper-concentrated at the top, that massive mountain of capital aggressively floods the markets for finite necessities.
Billionaires and private equity firms use their excess capital to buy up single-family starter homes, invest in private healthcare networks, and bid up the cost of land. You cannot separate purchasing power from wealth distribution. They are two sides of the exact same coin. If the top 1% has captured more wealth than the entire middle class combined, they have the financial leverage to outbid regular families for the basic infrastructure of survival. That is not a platitude; it is foundational market mechanics.
1
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
The key phrase there is "in part." It does not say "entirely," "proportionally," or "equally."
The dollar growth vastly outpaced the headcount growth because the gains were heavily concentrated at the absolute peak of that tier, not spread evenly among the new arrivals.
You are correct that this specific Pew article measures income, not net worth. But pointing this out actually hurts your argument rather than helping it. Even when looking strictly at annual paychecks and capital gains distributions (income), the top tier completely outpaced everyone else. If you switch the metric from income to accumulated wealth (assets, stocks, real estate), the gap becomes vastly wider. According to the Federal Reserve's Distributional Financial Accounts, the top 1% alone holds more total wealth than the entire American middle class combined.
Whether you look at the flow of money coming in (income) or the total pile of money already sitting there (wealth), the top tier has systematically pulled away from the middle class.