Also, some irony in a post from Forbes to support your argument. Particularly given that the contributor was Q.ai founded by Stephen Mathai-Davis who was undoubtedly part of the 1% being targeted in this post.

“Aggregate demand might increase because there is an increase in spending by consumers, businesses or government, or an increase in net exports. As a result, demand for goods and services will increase relative to their supply, providing scope for firms to increase prices (and their margins – which is their mark-up on costs). At the same time, firms will seek to employ more workers to meet this extra demand. With increased demand for labour, firms may have to offer higher wages to attract new staff and retain their existing employees. Firms may also increase the prices of their goods and services to cover their higher labour costs.[2] More jobs and higher wages increase household incomes and lead to a rise in consumer spending, further increasing aggregate demand and the scope for firms to increase the prices of their goods and services. When this happens across a large number of businesses and sectors, this leads to an increase in inflation.”

US just pumped a trillion dollars of spending into the economy. That’s not going to be a weak effect on inflation.

https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/causes-of-inflation.html

On this we agree. Excessive, reckless spending is driving this. How much did the US Gov just agree to spend? How many trillions of dollars? And for what? This won’t end well if we continue on this path.

That’s a nuanced argument that’s not welcome here. Totally agree.

Thomas Sowell has written some books on economics that cover stuff like this. Recommended reading.

That’s the issue with stats like this. They don’t tell the full story. Sure, it’s nice for driving a 1 dimensional ideological argument, but it doesn’t reveal the whole picture. More people working that weren’t previously, are going to feature in the bottom percentiles. Nobody comes out of long term unemployment, or starts a first job in the top 1%. Conversely, as economies grow and innovation thrives, people have the opportunity to elevate through the top percentiles. At the same time, people that were in the top 1% drop back as their circumstances change. It’s not like there’s a room of 1%ers that are sitting around for 40 years getting richer and richer. Further, what are the wages in each percentile and how do they relate to standard of living?

It’s not just as simple as rich = bad and they got there at the expense of the poor.

No, it doesn’t. It shows the percentages of wage earners. It makes no distinction as to the actual growth in workers in each percentile. Only the relative differences.

If more people are being lifted out of poverty over time, that’s a good thing. This doesn’t show the numbers of wage earners, it just shows the percentages of wage earners. If the numbers in each group is growing, there are more people in the top 1 % earning more money. Same applies for each percentile. Even in the lower percentiles, if there are more people earning, that’s a good thing for everybody.

Something showing the relative numbers of people in each percentile over time would make this more interesting. If there are people moving up overall, that’s a good outcome.