there's some personality test (Big Five/ OCEAN? MB ?) that asks "do facts speak for themselves...or do facts illustrate principles?" A single graph can NEVER explain a story. Aggregates aren't. Comparisons don't.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ Also, note that the Y axis is "PERCENT of societal wealth". Perform a thought experiment with me. Imagine that a nuclear war tomorrow destroys 100% of US infrastructure and wealth. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT survivors crawl out of the rubble and use sticks & stones to plant crops
Show this thread -
4/ Twenty years later, that generation (generation "one") have built simple hovels, lean-to-barns, and have forged shovels, picks, and chisels. Generation One is living at subsistence level, but owns 100% of societal wealth. Then they breed. Over the next 20 years ...
Show this thread -
5/ Society keeps climbing upwards. Wagon wheels are reinvented, water wheels are built, looms and glass kilns. It is now 40 years after The War and life is MUCH better than it was a mere 20 years after the war. Gen One owns 70% of the wealth Gen Two owns 30% of the wealth
Show this thread -
6/ Question: Would you rather be a member of Generation One at 20 years after The War, living under lean-tos built of wreckage, and planting corn with a sharp stick BUT OWNING 100% OF SOCIETAL WEALTH ... or ...
Show this thread -
7/ ...would you rather be born into Generation Two, living in a simple house with a fireplace, glass windows, and using plows pulled by horses to plant your corn? On the down side you only own 30% of the societal wealth. (OTOH, in a few yrs Gen On passes & you inherit wealth)
Show this thread -
8/ OR, behind door number three is Generation Three. You are born 40 years after the War, you grow up with tractors planting the crops, you work 6 days a week, not 7, you can attend school and learn to read ... Or Generation Four...
Show this thread -
9/ PERCENT of generational wealth is a bull-!@# metric. It has the effect of "penalizing" a generation (on paper, at least) for being born into a wealthy society.
Show this thread -
10/ Tedious nit pick. The entire thread, starting with the OP, is abstracting away intra-generational differences, and by diving into this you muddy the discussion that's actually going on. https://twitter.com/amurshak/status/1303324683627106306 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
11/ "This apple pie recipe requires two pounds of apples and one pound of flour" YES, BUT NOT ALL APPLES ARE THE SAME SIZE. I know. I know. But that's totally irrelevant to the point being discussed.
Show this thread -
12/ Nothing in my argument addresses the power of envy. I am merely criticizing the data presented.https://twitter.com/bitterclinger4e/status/1303325116407971842 …
Show this thread -
13/ Agreed, but orthogonal to my point.https://twitter.com/Jakethecrazy19/status/1303330374689357824 …
Show this thread -
14/ this is another good point: if generation N has low consumption and high savings, and generation N+1 or N+2 has the reverse, the latter generations will never accumulate wealth ... EVEN IF THEIR INCOMES ARE HIGHER !https://twitter.com/Bobthewelding1/status/1313846236190068737 …
Show this thread -
15/ I don't care if it "flies". I analyze facts, I don't pander to demographics.https://twitter.com/ernunnos/status/1313856112312057858 …
Show this thread -
16/ average US HOUSEHOLD income in 1977 was $13,570; so that wage number is nonsense. use inflation tools: $55k house = $235k (check) $13k = $58k (check) avg house size 1977 = 1660 ft^2 in 2020 = 2,687 ft^2https://twitter.com/Wyrm_00_/status/1313864121625047040 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.