The article also uses income...

Anyway, if anything the distribution based on wealth would even more starkly be hyper-focused at the top, the people in the 10-9% range aren't exactly sitting on mountains of gold.

90th percentile 21-year-old has nothing. With college debt their assets are net negative.

90th percentile 65 year old has perhaps $1M+ in accumulated property wealth and retirement savings.

There is some generational inequality at work, but that 65 year old also had ~zero at 21. The 90th percentile 21 year old will likely be doing very well by the time they're 65, hard to say whether better or worse than today's cohort.

Some of those 90th percentile 21 year olds genuinely have nothing while others are in line to receive a bumper payday when their parents die.

Yep, and some have a lot more or less potential ahead of them, as well as "soft power", social capital and so on.

But in any case, with longer lifespans, many/most won't see inheritance until their 50s, 60s, even 70s, long past what are arguably the most expensive years (buying a home, raising kids and so on). Maybe in time to pay college fees, depending on when they have kids. Even for the relatively wealthy, it's the luck of the draw - healthcare and senior care costs many hundreds of thousands for some, and virtually nothing for others.

Are we sure? For me it looks like article uses ownership.

income is what people consume, it's what we should measure when thinking about inequality.

Who needs somewhere to live or money in the bank?

I dont think anyone would care if some people just had huge piles of money in the bank. Its what they do with the money that causes problems. That's income.

They use it to purchase assets which you need. This is a large component of the war on affordable housing.

This countries lack of affordable housing is due to NIMBYs pulling the ladder up after themselves. We could build enough housing for all the short term rentals and second homes people want if it was legal. Rich people owning houses isnt a problem unless theyre leaving them vacant en masse which by and large is not happening.

It's the other way around. If you think about it it's a little ridiculous to think that the entire world had a NIMBY crisis all at the same time.

Vacant en masse is happening a fair bit there are even some near where i live.

Mostly it's more people renting though.

The war on affordable housing is all around.

Its not the entire world, mostly the US. Japan for example doesnt have a NIMBY problem and that has allowed tokyo to become incredibly dense without becoming expensive.

Where do you live? Even manhattan has vacancy rates barely above the 3% structural minimum and thats the poster child for "rich people leaving property vacant" complaints.

The problem really is that too many homeowners refuse to allow anything other than SFHs to be built near them.