Note: Vimes is thinking of the landed gentry when he is considering the “rich”—that would be the top 1%, not the tippy-top super-rich. Also, in a pseudo-medivial environment, the lifestyle inequality isn’t as extreme as today’s 50th % vs 1%.
What boots theory is saying is that the rich have assets that provide ongoing value, in addition to their income producing assets, and so even someone with only (modern numbers) $500,000 in assets (house, car, stuff, some investments) and a part time non-profit job that pays $25,000 a year is going to live a more comfortable life than someone in Vimes position of ~$1,000 in assets and $75,000 a year from his full-time watch commander job.
Note: Vimes is thinking of the landed gentry when he is considering the “rich”—that would be the top 1%, not the tippy-top super-rich. Also, in a pseudo-medivial environment, the lifestyle inequality isn’t as extreme as today’s 50th % vs 1%.
What boots theory is saying is that the rich have assets that provide ongoing value, in addition to their income producing assets, and so even someone with only (modern numbers) $500,000 in assets (house, car, stuff, some investments) and a part time non-profit job that pays $25,000 a year is going to live a more comfortable life than someone in Vimes position of ~$1,000 in assets and $75,000 a year from his full-time watch commander job.
I simply disagree that that’s what boots theory is saying. It seems like a reasonable thing to say, but not using the words that were used.