Take individual income as (l + c), where l is the return on labour, and c is the return on capital, and assume a recession reduces both. The rich are rich (long term) through large c, not a balance of l and c, and so as a group they will inevitably be hurt the most during a recession. The only way this wouldn't be the case is if the reduction in returns to capital was negligible which, given what recessions are, seems unlikely. Also, whilst the rich are, undoubtedly, proportionally hurt the most be recessions, I presume you wouldn't claim that they were hurt the most in absolute terms (on average)?

And a follow up to my previous question: I realise it's difficult to guess a figure for (abs(r - g) / volatility), and it inevitably varies with economic conditions, but I'm interested in your sense for how it changes. Are you suggesting that it is mostly less than 1, mostly greater than 1, or that it spends roughly equal amounts of time greater than and less than 1?

edit: Sorry, after re-reading my post I realise that my use of absolute could easily be misinterpreted - I meant that although those with large capital portfolios will lose proportionally more of their income, they will still, on average, have significantly more wealth in absolute terms than those who started with small capital portfolios; and so the suggestion that they are 'hurt' more is, itself, fairly misleading.