Again, just speculation. Which is the entire problem here. I'm sure that my speculation is probably as defensible as yours considering we can't actually find any data and probably comes to different conclusions given different biases.

Sent an email to Mankiw asking for pointers to data on this subject. Doubt I'll get a response, but it's worth a little effort. Tried to find contact info for Sowell but came up dry or I would have asked him. Perhaps James can come up with a way to ask the man himself for some backup data?

I would love to see some source on the quote that hundreds of thousands of people who live in $300,00 homes on an income of under $20,000. I presume he is referring to the wifes and children of people with higher incomes.

Retirees, maybe?

Just a technical note. For the income from selling a home to be included in the income data you have to both sell the home and not buy another home in the same year for this to be included in the data. Otherwise it is netted out and not counted.

However, I would love to see some source on the quote that hundreds of thousands of people who live in $300,00 homes on an income of under $20,000. I presume he is referring to the wifes and children of people with higher incomes. Since this has to be some weird stat without out any real meaning I will judge his statement on the other data to be in the same category.

I'm reminded of the joke where the the unimpeachable source is considered to be the guy who you can't remember who started the rumor in the first place.

Again, I'm sure this is all innocent, but the narrative has the rather unsettling "just so" quality to it that makes it all to convenient. It would be really helpful if some blogger who has a platform and the connections to actually track this down to see where the source of these assertions come from.

Just sayin'.

Sowell seems to assert that such statistics don't really exist, and so it seems that he (and perhaps you) are likewise just guessing based on hunches rather than any actual data which could justfiy such assertions...

I can't imagine that such stats don't exist but I haven't been able to dig them up easily. A couple of name brand economists, including Greg Mankiw, are linking Sowell's piece but none are providing data.

But a substantial number of any given year's "top 1%" are almost certainly in the third quintile the year before and after a big windfall from the sale of home, stocks, inheritance, or other one-time event.

I hate to be a bother and I'm not saying you're wrong about this, but I would really like to have some back up for that assertion. I personally have no idea about these statistics and I'd like to find some actual data. Perhaps you could share these data with us?

Sowell seems to assert that such statistics don't really exist, and so it seems that he (and perhaps you) are likewise just guessing based on hunches rather than any actual data which could justfiy such assertions...

Again, I'm just looking for answers. I'd like to know what the real scoop is here.

Oh please. I'm sure many members of the top 1% have tumbled to the top 5%.

No doubt. But a substantial number of any given year's "top 1%" are almost certainly in the third quintile the year before and after a big windfall from the sale of home, stocks, inheritance, or other one-time event.

The best rule of thumb of which I'm aware for distinguishing among our social classes is that if you're paid by the hour, you're lower class, if you receive a salary, you're middle class, and if your income is derived from ownership (of land, stock, etc.), you're upper class. There are social aspects as well and by those standards the Kennedys, for example, are nouveau riche upstarts who are just breaking into the upper class.

Another definition I like is that you're upper class if, no matter how badly you screw up, you're not allowed to fail. That definition fits our current president rather handily.