Okay-- but consider what it says if you substitute "economically advantaged" instead-- is there a more fundamental problem with his statements?

Because calling the top 10% "rich" and conflating "super-rich" (that is, the top 0.5% of incomes) with that top 10% is probably wrong, true-- but the advantages that come with being in that top 10% for the children in those households--

well, I thought that part of things was interesting. I'm not sure that the attribution is correct, as it seems to be a lot more complex than just monetary factors can explain-- maybe it needs to include opportunity costs, or something, not sure...

but I'm wondering if you can get past the semantics enough to consider that 165K is a vastly different set of circumstances than 15K, no matter the labels, and reflect on what the data indicates about those different environments?


Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.