So does that mean we're all rich?
I mean, objectively we are in most senses of the word.
But that's generally not what people mean when they say "the rich"
(on the evacuation of Cambodian cities)
"On arrival at the villages to which they had been assigned, evacuees were required to write brief autobiographical essays. The essay's content, particularly with regard to the subject's activity during the Khmer Republic regime, was used to determine their fate...those occupying elite professional roles were usually sent for reeducation, which in practice meant immediate execution or confinement in a labour camp"
If this is genuinely something you're worried about, maybe a good idea to head it off at the pass by supporting a more equal society today.
Consider whether the billionaires you're (indirectly, you say) defending are similarly concerned with protecting your own well-being.
The only problem is with the homeless guy next to the station who also matches this definition. May be he's also rich in some sense?
The gist of it is that if the stock market goes up X% and generates a billion dollars of capital gains, the percentage of that billion that Joe Schmoe gets is vanishingly small compared to Buffet or Bezos or Gates. Sure everyone is up, but most of the gains went to those that already have the most (by definition, since that's how capital gains works, yknow).
To be clear, I'm not condemning this system. Just explaining that this is what a K-shaped recovery might mean. That those with very little are left out when most of the "recovery" comes from the Fed propping up asset prices while everything that isn't sufficiently similar to a security crumbles.
If you have 5% of AMZN, Besos has 95%, I have none and AMZN stock doubles in value, you can easily calculate the outcome in terms of dollar gains and how much inequality had risen.
That's a subjective value statement, not an objective fact.