There are a lot more people out there that quote Piketty than have read Piketty.

The basic idea here — that capitalism has entered a stage of long-term stagnation, where each recovery is turning out to be more lackluster than the last one — is essentially a variation on Piketty’s blunter “r > g” — which expresses the belief that, if left unchecked, capitalism will evolve into a rentiers’ paradise.

Piketty makes this really damn clear, puts it into words a half-dozen times and uses examples across 400 years of history: "R > G" is written for economists who can't think without coefficients but as far as the rest of us are concerned, the plain-text bald-as-day argument is that capitalism accumulates wealth. That's it. That's the whole book. He certainly offers a number of potential solutions but a good 85% of that book is demonstrating all the different ways that capitalism accumulates wealth. His use of the term rentier is for people whose income is passive, rather than active. It is, by definition, accumulated. And he makes the point that the longer wealth has been permitted to accumulate the more inequality there will be.

The key element shaping inequality is no longer the employment relationship, but rather whether one is able to buy assets that appreciate at a faster rate than both inflation and wages.

Assumes facts not in evidence. The key element shaping inequality is the assets one grows up with and one can continuously tap. This has never not been the case. Example: I have a buddy who is showrunner on three shows on Netflix. He's repped at Principato Young. He's as successful as successful can be but since he grew up in a broken home out in Mojave he rents an okay house in Hancock Park. I have another buddy who didn't finish college but since his mom decided not to sell her childhood home when Grandpa died he lives rent-free two Gold Line stops from DTLA. As does his girlfriend, who can now afford to take a hairdressing job in Orange County because she's getting an easy $2500/mo rent subsidy. People without those subsidies bailed a long time ago, or they live in extremely modest circumstances: my roommate in LA couldn't afford to work in LA if he weren't getting the friend rate on his room and even still, he's getting supplemental income every month from his folx.

Employment remains an important factor as it shapes the ability to do so (e.g., the ability to service a mortgage), but it is increasingly only one among other factors.

We used to believe in 20% down payments. We're now at 3%. If I were to buy my own house for what it's worth right now I'd need to have $15k put aside so I could put $2500 a month towards it. 20 years ago my wife put $6k aside so she could put $1150 a month towards it. If my wife were to graduate this year she'd make about $5k more a year doing her job than she did in 1999. MONEY FROM YOUR PARENTS is the primary driver in homeownership which is why the millennials are salty - lots of their parents were wiped out in 2008 so no house for them.