6 ms·
"Income growth of top 1%" is a very misleading concept. It sounds like "top 1%" is a fixed group of people, and we are talking about their income growth. Actual
by xname 11y ago
"Income growth of top 1%" is a very misleading concept. It sounds like "top 1%" is a fixed group of people, and we are talking about their income growth. Actually it is not that case at all. It is the "growth" of income from "top 1%" at different time points. Because it is about different group of people from different time points, it is misleading to call the difference as "growth". It's like last year best student A got score 100, and this year best student B got score 110, and you call it the "achievement growth of best student".
On the other hand, "income growth of bottom 99%" has the same issue, but it is less the problem, because 99% is a much more stable group of people. It's like "achievement growth of all students (except the best one)".
- vander_elst 11y agobut that's exaclty what they want to show, how the best students performed in different years, whoever they are.. what about if the score of the best student gradually goes from 100 to 80 in within 20 years.. that would still reveal something about the university and the students, further analysis have to be performed, no doubt on that, but that would show some particular trend in how the students are learning / are thaught