> Adjusted for inflation using the CPI, the numbers are even worse: half of all full-time workers (those at or below the median income of $50,000 a year) now earn less than half what they would have had incomes across the distribution continued to keep pace with economic growth.
Another aspect is the power that comes with money. People aren’t focusing on inequality in a pure “that’s unfair” view, there are also issues on how these ultra-rich people are completely outside of the reach of most rules and can sway whole economies basically at will.
Bezos’ fortune is equivalent to whole PIBs, that’s a lot of power concentrated in a single man.
> now earn less than half what they would have had incomes across the distribution continued to keep pace with economic growth.
but did those workers' productivity grew in line with the same economic growth? If said workers were _still_ doing the same jobs as they did before, and had the same output, does it make sense that their wage growth should keep pace with the economic growth?
Therein lies the rub - The United States seems happy that Bezos, spending capital on whatever he likes, is a better resource allocator than the government itself.
> Adjusted for inflation using the CPI, the numbers are even worse: half of all full-time workers (those at or below the median income of $50,000 a year) now earn less than half what they would have had incomes across the distribution continued to keep pace with economic growth.
Another aspect is the power that comes with money. People aren’t focusing on inequality in a pure “that’s unfair” view, there are also issues on how these ultra-rich people are completely outside of the reach of most rules and can sway whole economies basically at will.
Bezos’ fortune is equivalent to whole PIBs, that’s a lot of power concentrated in a single man.