This feels wrong. Investors did work for wages (or their ancestors did) and then instead of consuming they spent it on others in exchange for a pension.
The modern day equivalent to nobility would be government employees and net tax recipients.
By contrast, the median government salary in the US is 51k. Notably many government sector employees like teachers are paid at about the same level of other industrialised countries (although with enormously worse paid vacations, and less autonomy than in most EU countries).
Source: https://work.chron.com/average-salary-government-employees-7... https://www.businessinsider.com/teacher-salaries-by-country-...
That is pretty much the definition of the nobility.
Someone many generations ago did something perceived as meritorious by the monarch and was awarded a title and some land. To get to the position where they could have done something to earn them a peerage, their ancestors would have worked a job for payment, and so on.
The only difference is the timescale. The 16th Duke of Hamilton is 400 years from someone who had to work for a living. A highly privileged modern investor whose only job was a sinecure at Daddy's company might have parents or grandparents who worked an upper-middle class job.
> The modern day equivalent to nobility would be government employees
That is a ridiculous snark. Government employees work for a wage, just as commercial and third sector employees do. If they stop working, they end up destitute same as any other employee. You do realise that Ron Swanson is a fictional character, don't you?
An investor who is a completely layabout won’t stay rich very long, there is a natural terminus to that sort of behavior. Look at interest rates, the risk-free rate of money is 0%, less with inflation. We have inheritance taxes and can move that slider up/down as needed to prevent aristocracies from forming. Perhaps this is where your real disagreement lies?
>If they stop working, they end up destitute same as any other employee.
https://calmatters.org/category/economy/california-pension-c...
>You do realise that Ron Swanson is a fictional character, don't you?
Funny you falsely accuse me of snark and then reach into your bag of insults.