> If "the 1%" almost entirely changes every year, well... what's the problem with that? You're always going to have a top 1%. Don't we want it to have a significant amount of turnover? Indeed, these numbers sound perhaps a bit low, if anything (is it really that unstable up there? That's not obviously good to me.). If it's not the same people all the time, it's not obviously useful to be talking about them as a distinct group.
If the people in the "pool" competing for each year's exorbitant profits (the 0.1%) remain the same every year, there may still be a problem. That pool is called "the 1%"
If the people in the "pool" competing for each year's exorbitant profits (the 0.1%) remain the same every year, there may still be a problem. That pool is called "the 1%"