Yeah, I just think it’s wild to think that you can be in the world’s wealthiest 10% and still be living paycheck-to-paycheck in the US. Although, as you pointed out, their methodology for reaching that number may be a bit screwy.
Oh, for sure eye opening. And looking further in the study was even like, hey, our numbers are not great, but here is a method we could use if we had better numbers. It’s the kind of paper you see that might lead to an actual study, but not meant to be definitive
Oh, I’m not saying it should be studied, but I am saying this paper was not meant to be evidence. Just more proof of concept. The shame is really on the people publishing the article making definitive statements when the paper they are quoting did not.
Yeah, I just think it’s wild to think that you can be in the world’s wealthiest 10% and still be living paycheck-to-paycheck in the US. Although, as you pointed out, their methodology for reaching that number may be a bit screwy.
Oh, for sure eye opening. And looking further in the study was even like, hey, our numbers are not great, but here is a method we could use if we had better numbers. It’s the kind of paper you see that might lead to an actual study, but not meant to be definitive
@Vodulas @theangriestbird
It wouldn’t really surprise me though. Something like 10 years ago Picketty found that the top 10% of emitters produced 45% of the pollution.
https://wid.world/document/chancel-l-piketty-t-carbon-and-inequality-from-kyoto-to-paris-wid-world-working-paper-2015-7/
Oh, I’m not saying it should be studied, but I am saying this paper was not meant to be evidence. Just more proof of concept. The shame is really on the people publishing the article making definitive statements when the paper they are quoting did not.