[chrismanfrank]

From the article: "The study looks at people who were 35–40 in 1987 and then looks at how they were doing 20 years later, when they are 55–60. The median income of the people in the top 20% in 1987 ended up 5% lower twenty years later. The people in the middle 20% ended up with median income that was 27% higher. And if you started in the bottom 20%, your income doubled. If you were in the top 1% in 1987, 20 years later, median income was 29% lower."

[crazygringo]

In other words, regression to the mean. Of course the poorest people are more likely to gain in income -- when you start at the bottom, there's really only one direction you can go.

You can still have regression to the mean among individuals while society itself is becoming horrifyingly unequal.

[chrismanfrank]

"Of course the poorest people are more likely to gain in income -- when you start at the bottom, there's really only one direction you can go."

But doesn't this claim in itself refute the thesis that all the income gains are going to the top? If we find people at the bottom gaining income far faster than people at the top, which is what my quote claims, isn't that evidence that we live in a just society, not an unjust one?

[snikeris]

Would you please elaborate on this:

> society itself is becoming horrifyingly unequal

[whyaduck]

Not from the article: people who were in the top quintile or 1% in 1987 are far more likely to have retired early than those in middle or bottom quintile. Tell me about their wealth, not their income.