You know when you listen to someone and you go “Nah, I’m sure he didn’t mean that” that’s me constantly in this book.
Currently he’s at:
If folks have lots of children, inherited wealth is insignificant because you have to divide it over all the children (note he does not discuss class differences in number of children here, which was an issue in Norway and I’m sure is everywhere tbh). Also he doesn’t describe inheritance processes where everything or large parts are passed to only one child (oftest the eldest MALE child)
I think this is where he wants to stop. Because the next bit breaks his plan:
He mentions that population growth can also be through immigration, but he doesn’t discuss how that completely ruins this breakup of inheritance.
And then he gets hand wavy about immigration being bad because of conflicts between these groups.
You see where I’m getting iffy here?
He says that inherited wealth is not an issue in the US because of population growth. But then he says that the population growth in the US was because of immigration… you see my problem?
The math ain’t mathing. And I don’t know if it is racism or having two variables or both.