>http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/
>
High earners, which this study measures, are not the same as high owners.
At an elemental level, high earners get all that money because other people value what the high earners have to offer more than its cost in cash.
So .. Nike thinks that Tiger Woods' association with Nike is worth more than $20million/year and gives him all that cash for saying nice things about Nike.
Now, Joe Dimwit forks out over $150 for a pair of Nike golf shoes because they're what Tiger wears.
I wear golf shoes that I bought decades ago for a small fraction of that and laugh when I see people wearing Nike shoes (especially when my score is better. )
So, if Joe Dimwit is dumb enough to pay those prices.. more power to Nike and to Tiger.
Ditto with hedge funds.. if people are dumb enough to give them all that money.. bravo!
I'm all for caveat emptor.

High owners are something else again.
Woody Johnson, whose IQ is not much higher than the number of games the Jets won last year while basking in his incompetent leadership, has done absolutely nothing to earn his $10billion + net worth.
Zilch.
Bupkis.
Nada.

That's the problem. The huge disparity in the starting points our children have.