The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: HawkeyeNFO on November 14, 2017, 02:21:58 PM
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.html
Yep. No surprise here. The rich get richer....
-
Well maybe there doing the right things. The more you have invested the chances are you will have more wealth. The article is to simplistic.
-
I read another article today where restaurant corporations are getting scared because Millennials refuse to eat out. It's not all doom and gloom.
-
Let's go back to the several years that I had $0, was homeless at times and I was so dang happy when I could just get my hands on a Dr. Pepper every now and then, let alone some food...... I never had an attitude about people with money. I just don't understand why people worry or even think about anyone else's money situation. Why does it matter if others have $1 or $1 billion? What is it anyone else's business? If those that worry about others would worry about their own bank account they might have a little more money. Spend that time selling something instead of thinking about what others have that you don't.
Here is how I changed my bank account, I hung out with people that had money and they never knew I was homeless. I started doing the things they did, worked my (*) off and here I am today, one of the top few! I didn't make them feel sorry for me or ask them for things.... I rode my bike to work or walked and worked 120+ hour weeks. The first 3 years I owned my cleaning business I worked 365 days a year and on Christmas I had to clean a church 2 times instead of having one of my workers do it so they could have the day off. I worked hard then so I don't have to now.
-
I'm somewhat surprised it isn't higher than half. As a worldwide 1%er, I'm doing what I can to get that number higher.
You are probably a worldwide 1%er too:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.html
Yep. No surprise here. The rich get richer....
Hard to say because there is as far as I can tell no cite or link to the report, but the "report" may just be playing games with net worth and the fact that a lot of high income people still have low or negative net worth. So in a society of 100 people where 99 people made $1,000,000,000 a year and spent $1,000,000,000 per year, the one guy making $50,000 a year and spending $49,999 a year owns more wealth than the other 99 people in his society, combined!!1!1!!
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.html
Yep. No surprise here. The rich get richer....
Context matter a bunch here and more likely than not most people on this forum are part of the guilty 1% (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)....
Global top 1% for income in US$ - $32,400.
Global Top 1% for net worth - $770,000 (includes home equity)
So really not that high of a bar.
-
Good for us 1%ers!
Hopefully I'll make it into the millionaire club too someday.
-
Let's go back to the several years that I had $0, was homeless at times and I was so dang happy when I could just get my hands on a Dr. Pepper every now and then, let alone some food...... I never had an attitude about people with money. I just don't understand why people worry or even think about anyone else's money situation. Why does it matter if others have $1 or $1 billion? What is it anyone else's business? If those that worry about others would worry about their own bank account they might have a little more money. Spend that time selling something instead of thinking about what others have that you don't.
Here is how I changed my bank account, I hung out with people that had money and they never knew I was homeless. I started doing the things they did, worked my (*) off and here I am today, one of the top few! I didn't make them feel sorry for me or ask them for things.... I rode my bike to work or walked and worked 120+ hour weeks. The first 3 years I owned my cleaning business I worked 365 days a year and on Christmas I had to clean a church 2 times instead of having one of my workers do it so they could have the day off. I worked hard then so I don't have to now.
It matters if they use that money to buy laws, lawmakers, preferential treatment...
-
Let's go back to the several years that I had $0, was homeless at times and I was so dang happy when I could just get my hands on a Dr. Pepper every now and then, let alone some food...... I never had an attitude about people with money. I just don't understand why people worry or even think about anyone else's money situation. Why does it matter if others have $1 or $1 billion? What is it anyone else's business? If those that worry about others would worry about their own bank account they might have a little more money. Spend that time selling something instead of thinking about what others have that you don't.
Here is how I changed my bank account, I hung out with people that had money and they never knew I was homeless. I started doing the things they did, worked my (*) off and here I am today, one of the top few! I didn't make them feel sorry for me or ask them for things.... I rode my bike to work or walked and worked 120+ hour weeks. The first 3 years I owned my cleaning business I worked 365 days a year and on Christmas I had to clean a church 2 times instead of having one of my workers do it so they could have the day off. I worked hard then so I don't have to now.
It matters if they use that money to buy laws, lawmakers, preferential treatment...
This.
Just to give one example, the Indian subcontinent wasn't conquered by the British Empire. It was conquered by a corporation called the British East India Company. That corporation, owned by private individuals, had so much power and wealth, they were able to own a hundred million people and all their resources for generations.
We dang well should and better care that 50% of the worlds wealth is owned by 1% of the people, especially when the most powerful country in that world is currently enacting tax policies and laws to further increase the wealth of that very small group of individuals.
It's not about jealousy. It's not about envy for the cool yachts they own. It it was just relatively benign shit like that, it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that that money allows them to control public policy...in other words, our democracy...in other words, our ability to live in an actually free society. And this isn't hyperbole, it's what always happens throughout history when tiny groups get all the power.
-
It's much worse than the original link suggests. Some analyses report that it's not the top 1% who own as much as the poorest half of humans, it's five individual people who own as much as the poorest half of humans.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/06/12/now-just-five-men-own-almost-much-wealth-half-worlds-population
Wealth inequality is ridiculous at all levels. The top 1% are just as poor compared to the top .01% as the the rest of the world is to the 1%.
-
I wish I could find it, but Keith Knight has a comic about affirmative action, and white people complaining, well, they have the same rights as us, what does it matter, is like being invited to play monopoly during the last 10 minutes of the game, given 200 bucks, but all the spaces have houses and hotels on them.
Similar thoughts about the poor and rich. It's not about having a yacht or not. There is such a disparity, that in many parts of the world (and even the US) it is the difference between having enough food to eat, survival out of childhood, clean drinking water, and safety from violence. So for those people, yes I think they do care.
-
A huge part of this forum make up that 1%
I actually fall in the top 3.7% of the world's richest people.....with a NW of $300k.....
-
A similar report of 3 Americans having as much wealth as the bottom half.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/08/bill-gates-jeff-bezos-warren-buffett-wealthier-than-poorest-half-of-us
-
A similar report of 3 Americans having as much wealth as the bottom half.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/08/bill-gates-jeff-bezos-warren-buffett-wealthier-than-poorest-half-of-us
That article says the three richest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans.
The above link say the five richest people on Earth have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of people on Earth.
Same idea, but very different metrics. Americans are pretty damn wealthy compared to most people on Earth. Even the poor ones.
-
Waaahhhh..........
Most of the poorest countries are poor because their Socialist governments are corrupt and are looting their countries resources and foreign aid in order to line their own pockets. What is your solution? Confiscate more money from the weathiest countries? Where does THAT money come from? You? Me? It's pretty naive to think that money wouldn't end up in the same place. Guess I don't understand the OP's point.
-
Waaahhhh..........
Most of the poorest countries are poor because their Socialist governments are corrupt and are looting their countries resources and foreign aid in order to line their own pockets. What is your solution? Confiscate more money from the weathiest countries? Where does THAT money come from? You? Me? It's pretty naive to think that money wouldn't end up in the same place. Guess I don't understand the OP's point.
Wait. What?
I'd talk to people actually living in one of these 'corrupt' Socialist governments before I'd make a statement like that. I have (I'm talking France and Denmark... not Russia) and they paint a radically different picture than you just described.
In any case, history shows us why this is important. Wealth imbalance has historically led to revolutions. Those revolutions haven't solved any problems, but they have hurt a lot of people. Generally there is a wave of populism. Intellectuals are usually targeted, and minorities too. Then the status quo is reestablished and there is a different group of people at top of the chain. So... it's good information to know and good to talk about.
-
...and we're coming for you guys' half, soon, too!
-
I agree that a lot of poor countries have corrupt or weak governments. But I wouldn't describe them as socialist, because yanno, socialist governements redistribute wealth. Maybe some are socialist in name, but not in practice. Kind of how the US is democratic in name but becoming an oligarchy.
-
The poor have NEVER been better off.
There is often a sub-text to these conversations that inequality is somehow bad. Wrong-o! Inequality is what provides motivation and is exactly why socialism fails every.single.time. It removes the reward from the risk.
As far as the wealthy buying influence, power etc. Yes. They always have and yes they always will, of course they will! It would be foolish not to.
-
There is often a sub-text to these conversations that inequality is somehow bad. Wrong-o! Inequality is what provides motivation and is exactly why socialism fails every.single.time. It removes the reward from the risk.
What is your definition of socialism?
-
I agree that a lot of poor countries have corrupt or weak governments. But I wouldn't describe them as socialist, because yanno, socialist governements redistribute wealth. Maybe some are socialist in name, but not in practice. Kind of how the US is democratic in name but becoming an oligarchy.
Socialism is more about the government controlling the means of production than it is about redistributing wealth.
-
I think there must be a very long tail that was cut off from that graph, given that the average spending is 10-20/day.
-
What is your definition of socialism?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
-
Inequality is what provides motivation and is exactly why socialism fails every.single.time.
What is the definition of failure here? If you look at all the countries currently considered the best, most of those are considered more socialist than the rest of the world. However no one is 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
No doubt inequality provides motivation but historically I think that motivation has turned into blood in the streets more so rather than an individual deciding to be become relentless in their pursuit of the upper echelons.
-
What is your definition of socialism?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
Your definition doesn't support your claim: "exactly why socialism fails every.single.time."
-
Well I'm in the top 1% of the planet based on income and I'm in the top 2% for net worth. Hopefully I can crack the top 1% for net worth in the next few years.
-
I think there must be a very long tail that was cut off from that graph, given that the average spending is 10-20/day.
Don't forget that the x-axis is not linear. Also, as it is the graph ends at $200 per day per capita, which works out to a family of four spending almost $300k per year.
-
I think there must be a very long tail that was cut off from that graph, given that the average spending is 10-20/day.
Don't forget that the x-axis is not linear. Also, as it is the graph ends at $200 per day per capita, which works out to a family of four spending almost $300k per year.
That is a good point. The fact that the x axis is not linear, really compresses it and distorts how long the tail is, and how compressed everyone else is. I am glad that the poor are getting better off. But if everyone improves, including the top 1% and .1%, then consumption is also going to go way up, especially as the population keeps increasing. This is one of the few forums where I can say and not get horrified responses, that the responsibility of the top 10% of the world may be finding a way to reduce their consumption, so that the lower 50% can not just survive, but live.
-
Look at the top 2 people in the United States Buffet and Gates.
Was their money inherited? No.
Did they both start out roughly where I did - money wise yep. Brain wise nope ( both are smarter than me).
Good for them that they made great companies and made themselves and many others rich too!!!
Will they take it with them when they die? Nope.
We are all in the same boat.
-
Don't forget that the x-axis is not linear. Also, as it is the graph ends at $200 per day per capita, which works out to a family of four spending almost $300k per year.
$300k per year? That's peanuts.
You have to remember that wealth inequality isn't measured in the number of people in each income bin, it's measured in total wealth. The median person doesn't matter at all. The 95% percentile person doesn't matter at all. They're both destitute paupers compared to the few thousands people alive today who control the majority of all wealth on the planet. Those are the only people who are truly driving the global economy. Everything the rest of us do is a rounding error.
Imagine an island with a thousand people. 999 of them have $1 each, and the 1000th person has a billion dollars. That's approximately the situation we're dealing with today, on a planetary scale. The 999 all run around frantically competing to get $2 or even $5 if they're really lucky, but none of that really matters. When analyzing how their island's resources and assets are allocated and controlled, every single one of the 999 is invisible. That last guy is the only one who makes any decisions that count for anything.
-
Most people, even in rich countries, own surprisingly little in assets. Consider someone earning $100k a year. Rich, eh? If that person lives paycheck to paycheck, and rents a house, that person might have about $50K in assets, at fire sale prices. Car, clothes, furniture. If Bill Gates has $50 billion in assets, he has as much as one million of those with only $50K in assets each.
The situation is more dire in poor countries. Most people do not think about income producing assets, and only think about the worth of their labor.
'1 percenters own HALF of the world's wealth' is a striking title, but it it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets. That is a decision, even if these people are not fully ware that they have made a decision.
More to the point is inequality of income, not assets.
-
What is your definition of socialism?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
Ah you see that definition is describing pure socialism, ie communism. I agree that pure communism doesn't work, we study that at school and read Animal Farm! However, if you read further down the page you see that when most people say socialism they are referring to democratic socialism, eg Denmark & many other European countries.
Were you referring to the dictionary definition as quoted? Or saying that democratic socialism fails? Because if the latter, I couldn't ever agree.
From my studies of economic development, I believe inequality does not motivate upward movement but rather creates divisions and motivates people to crime and/or a distrust or fear of 'the others'. Reducing inequality is the goal of economic development.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.html
Yep. No surprise here. The rich get richer....
Most likely none of them are happy though...
-
In my country the government handouts for idle people translate to approximately $3-400k of wealth per adult person, using the 4% rule.
So, a family of 2 adults, 2 children, with no jobs and 0 investments / property has effective wealth of ~$800k.
Clearly ahead of my own family to be honest.
-
Look at the top 2 people in the United States Buffet and Gates.
Was their money inherited? No.
Did they both start out roughly where I did - money wise yep. Brain wise nope ( both are smarter than me).
Good for them that they made great companies and made themselves and many others rich too!!!
Will they take it with them when they die? Nope.
We are all in the same boat.
How familiar are you with these two biographies? Buffet was the son of a Congressman. Gates' parents already owned helicopters BEFORE he was in high school. They deserve tremendous credit for what they built, but they have both openly acknowledged the advantages they had from birth.
-
Most likely none of them are happy though...
I'm pretty happy and I am nearly a 1% for NW.
-
The poor have NEVER been better off.
There is often a sub-text to these conversations that inequality is somehow bad. Wrong-o! Inequality is what provides motivation and is exactly why socialism fails every.single.time. It removes the reward from the risk.
As far as the wealthy buying influence, power etc. Yes. They always have and yes they always will, of course they will! It would be foolish not to.
Just so you are aware, a majority of folks living in these “socialist” countries would probably disagree with your assertion that it is a negative. For example, Canada, Europe and South America have much better health care for the same costs.... I know first hand.
As for the rich buying influence, at least we can agree it’s wrong... right?
I would also agree that global capitalism is the single greatest contributor to reducing poverty around the world. Not the best if you live and work in manufacturing in the US though. Can’t have it both ways.
Yay capitalism !!
-
Most people, even in rich countries, own surprisingly little in assets. Consider someone earning $100k a year. Rich, eh? If that person lives paycheck to paycheck, and rents a house, that person might have about $50K in assets, at fire sale prices. Car, clothes, furniture. If Bill Gates has $50 billion in assets, he has as much as one million of those with only $50K in assets each.
The situation is more dire in poor countries. Most people do not think about income producing assets, and only think about the worth of their labor.
'1 percenters own HALF of the world's wealth' is a striking title, but it it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets. That is a decision, even if these people are not fully ware that they have made a decision.
More to the point is inequality of income, not assets.
No, it absolutely IS the inequality of assets that's the problem.
But like Sol has pointed out, and very well IMO, it's not the fact that they have half the assets that's the real problem. It's that having half the wealth gives them 99% of the power.
If the the richest 50 people in the USA have 80% of the say about what rights for the LGTBQ community will be, that goes beyond material wealth. If they can determine the direction that stem cell research can or can't go in. If they can determine the laws and regulations that determine which forms of energy will be the winners or losers, etc. This is the real problem. It undermines our freedom.
And saying "it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets"....are you kidding me.
The difference between me and the children of the Kochs, the Devos's, the Trumps, the Waltons is not a difference in a desire to own productive assets. It's the difference between who is born to who.
It was mentioned in a different post I think, but it's like playing monopoly where 99.999% of the players get invited to start playing with $200 dollars, and all the properties have already been purchased and everything is built up with hotels.
I want to say as explicitly as possible that I have ZERO jealousy or envy that these people get to fly fancy planes and have 50 million dollar toys. The problem is that they get to make decisions about how our society will operate.
The children of the Koch's will have more ability to influence public policy than everyone in the whole state of Michigan combined who isn't worth a billion dollars or more.
And right now policies are being enacted to let these children inherit an even LARGER percentage of their parents wealth.
-
Most people do not think about income producing assets, and only think about the worth of their labor.
That is a very important statement. That change in thought took me from negative net worth of $170,000 to a positive net worth of $100,000 in 5 years and I am now generating $5,000 per month in additional net worth without touching my personal monthly income. I focused 100% on income producing assets for 2 years and change my life.
A large percentage of the 99% wont go without flashy stuff to change the life. Others don't have enough to live on. you have to make enough to live before you can invest in assets.
-
A large percentage of the 99% wont go without flashy stuff to change the life. Others don't have enough to live on. you have to make enough to live before you can invest in assets.
Keep in mind everyone you know is in top 5% of the planet and if you are a professional you and your peers are in the top 1-2%. Most of the people on the planet are trying to eat, shelter themselves and survive not worrying about what bling to buy next.
-
Most people, even in rich countries, own surprisingly little in assets. Consider someone earning $100k a year. Rich, eh? If that person lives paycheck to paycheck, and rents a house, that person might have about $50K in assets, at fire sale prices. Car, clothes, furniture. If Bill Gates has $50 billion in assets, he has as much as one million of those with only $50K in assets each.
The situation is more dire in poor countries. Most people do not think about income producing assets, and only think about the worth of their labor.
'1 percenters own HALF of the world's wealth' is a striking title, but it it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets. That is a decision, even if these people are not fully ware that they have made a decision.
More to the point is inequality of income, not assets.
No, it absolutely IS the inequality of assets that's the problem.
But like Sol has pointed out, and very well IMO, it's not the fact that they have half the assets that's the real problem. It's that having half the wealth gives them 99% of the power.
If the the richest 50 people in the USA have 80% of the say about what rights for the LGTBQ community will be, that goes beyond material wealth. If they can determine the direction that stem cell research can or can't go in. If they can determine the laws and regulations that determine which forms of energy will be the winners or losers, etc. This is the real problem. It undermines our freedom.
And saying "it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets"....are you kidding me.
The difference between me and the children of the Kochs, the Devos's, the Trumps, the Waltons is not a difference in a desire to own productive assets. It's the difference between who is born to who.
It was mentioned in a different post I think, but it's like playing monopoly where 99.999% of the players get invited to start playing with $200 dollars, and all the properties have already been purchased and everything is built up with hotels.
I want to say as explicitly as possible that I have ZERO jealousy or envy that these people get to fly fancy planes and have 50 million dollar toys. The problem is that they get to make decisions about how our society will operate.
The children of the Koch's will have more ability to influence public policy than everyone in the whole state of Michigan combined who isn't worth a billion dollars or more.
And right now policies are being enacted to let these children inherit an even LARGER percentage of their parents wealth.
I would encourage you taking a look at our current political system, compare it the Koch brother's political beliefs, and then make a determination of how much influence they have. The Kochs are libertarians. US governments take 35% of GDP and spend it primarily on the military, transfer payments, healthcare, and education. That's not a libertarian outcome, so the Koch brothers can be said to have marginal influence at best.
-
What is your definition of socialism?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
Ah you see that definition is describing pure socialism, ie communism. I agree that pure communism doesn't work, we study that at school and read Animal Farm! However, if you read further down the page you see that when most people say socialism they are referring to democratic socialism, eg Denmark & many other European countries.
Were you referring to the dictionary definition as quoted? Or saying that democratic socialism fails? Because if the latter, I couldn't ever agree.
From my studies of economic development, I believe inequality does not motivate upward movement but rather creates divisions and motivates people to crime and/or a distrust or fear of 'the others'. Reducing inequality is the goal of economic development.
Socialism defined above.
Communism, per Marx: "Abolition of private property."
Democratic socialism: political democracy and social ownership of the means of production
-Agree pure socialism = communism, though the meanings of the words and history of the movements has been fluid.
Capitalism: economic system + ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Totalitarianism/fascism: individual subservience to the State, often incorporating other bad stuff like dictators, racism, etc.
The 'Democratic socialist' nations are capitalist at their core with an infection of totalitarianism/fascism. WHAT you say?? well, look at the definitions. They are largely capitalist: private ownership of most sectors of industry. You can purchase shares in most companies and they are run for-profit. Some sectors have state choice vs. individual choice (the totalitarianism/fascism aspect); education, healthcare are the typical examples. Actual ownership of the providers is often a muddled mess. Though, it is quite clear a Swedish billionaire will have access to better HC and education than the proletariat....
You say you "believe inequality does not motivate upward movement " but I betcha you act the opposite, most of us do. Go to school, work hard, get better jobs, etc. Why? to improve your situation! To 'move up'! The only motivation for upwards movement is inequality, reaching for the next step up; almost by definition. If there was nothing to move up to, there is no motivation. Can't climb a ladder made of air.
Inequality is what provides motivation and is exactly why socialism fails every.single.time.
What is the definition of failure here? If you look at all the countries currently considered the best, most of those are considered more socialist than the rest of the world. However no one is 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
The 'most' socialist: N Korea, Cuba, Venezuela.... China used to be on the list till they realized it was a failure, and introduced capitalist 'reforms'. Russia/USSR collapsed as well of course. The Maduro Diet is a real thing, right now...
-
^This is very America and driven by consumerism. I assure you, the rest of the world does not feel this way. Believe it or not, there are many very happy people in this world who live on very little....and I mean very little!
Not everyone wants or needs to "move up". Sure, I could go back to school and get another degree and probably make a lot more money but my life would be a complete mess. No time for the things that make me happy and I'm ok with that.
As a side note, the only thing separating the US and a Third World nation are the safety net features (socialism) we pay for with our taxes. Ive had some clients come here from China who told me they were shocked by the amount of poverty in the US and how run down everything looked. They thought this was the land of abundances.
I would even argue that the US is one of the most socialist nations in the world if you want to consider things like government subsidies for agriculture and corporations, worthless military bases, ect. All aimed at keeping people in this country out of dire poverty.
-
Didn't we just have a thread where it was basically determined that most people on this forum are 5 percenters for their age?
-
As a side note, the only thing separating the US and a Third World nation are the safety net features (socialism) we pay for with our taxes.
Do you really mean that? If Zimbabwe or Syria cloned our Social Security system and gave out food stamps, would it become just like the US?
-
You say you "believe inequality does not motivate upward movement " but I betcha you act the opposite, most of us do. Go to school, work hard, get better jobs, etc. Why? to improve your situation! To 'move up'! The only motivation for upwards movement is inequality, reaching for the next step up; almost by definition. If there was nothing to move up to, there is no motivation. Can't climb a ladder made of air.
Inequality is what provides motivation and is exactly why socialism fails every.single.time.
What is the definition of failure here? If you look at all the countries currently considered the best, most of those are considered more socialist than the rest of the world. However no one is 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
The 'most' socialist: N Korea, Cuba, Venezuela.... China used to be on the list till they realized it was a failure, and introduced capitalist 'reforms'. Russia/USSR collapsed as well of course. The Maduro Diet is a real thing, right now...
So you are saying that pure communism fails (I think?) and I think most people would agree with you. There are very few people in the world still spruiking communism as the answer. Is Cuba a total failure though, I don't know - obviously there's a lack of personal freedom but I've visited and people were making their way and making money on the side. There was inequality between those who could earn tourist dollars on the side and those who couldn't. Health care was great, there was free government ice-cream and cake, ha ha, I felt incredibly safe aside from when those not able to easily earn tourist dollars got a little pushy.
About what I say and do personally... hmmm, I've never been very ambitious, I learned very early on that 'more' was not going to make me happy. I was born into a very privileged life - an average family in the UK so I was born rich and with so many opportunities compared to most in the world. Tertiary education was free when I was there and I chose a subject that I enjoyed. After that I didn't have to work my bum off to provide the income I needed and I've made numerous sideways career moves and downshifts and so on rather than climb the ladder.
The easy reading philosopher Alain de Botton has written an interesting book called 'The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work' which includes discussion around the human need to work to be happy. I agree with that. I'd say I have a inherent work ethic and will always have a project even when not in paid work, but I'm not in the pursuit of a 'better job' if that means 'more wealth.' I define success by the relationships I have and the legacy I leave. As a secular person, I believe my purpose is not to harm the world and, if possible, to make the world better.
-
As a side note, the only thing separating the US and a Third World nation are the safety net features (socialism) we pay for with our taxes.
Do you really mean that? If Zimbabwe or Syria cloned our Social Security system and gave out food stamps, would it become just like the US?
Well, those are war torn nations at the moment and it was a generalization. But without our current welfare system, yes, millions would be living and dying on the streets. Not the kind of place I would want to live.
BTW....Syria wasn't so awful of a place to live not so long ago.
-
As a side note, the only thing separating the US and a Third World nation are the safety net features (socialism) we pay for with our taxes.
Do you really mean that? If Zimbabwe or Syria cloned our Social Security system and gave out food stamps, would it become just like the US?
Well, those are war torn nations at the moment and it was a generalization. But without our current welfare system, yes, millions would be living and dying on the streets. Not the kind of place I would want to live.
BTW....Syria wasn't so awful of a place to live not so long ago.
I'm sure many would be worse off without such programs but I don't believe it would reduce the US to the level of a 3rd world country. There are political, cultural, economic, and legal institutions that make a much bigger difference to the US's prosperity than welfare programs alone.
Regarding Syria, part of its problems was it lacked durable institutions to prevent its disintegration. Its modest prosperity prior to the Arab Spring proved to be quite fragile because of its institutional deficits.
Regarding the specific assertion millions would die without the current social welfare system, I found only one example here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines) of a US famine occurring prior to the establishment of the modern social welfare system during the 20th century (~1000 fatalities which took place on a remote Alaskan island starting in 1878). If a much poorer US managed to almost entirely avoid famine throughout nearly all of its history, I doubt the present-day (and much wealthier) US would struggle, even without the presence of 20th century social welfare reforms.
-
As a side note, the only thing separating the US and a Third World nation are the safety net features (socialism) we pay for with our taxes.
Do you really mean that? If Zimbabwe or Syria cloned our Social Security system and gave out food stamps, would it become just like the US?
Well, those are war torn nations at the moment and it was a generalization. But without our current welfare system, yes, millions would be living and dying on the streets. Not the kind of place I would want to live.
BTW....Syria wasn't so awful of a place to live not so long ago.
I'm sure many would be worse off without such programs but I don't believe it would reduce the US to the level of a 3rd world country. There are political, cultural, economic, and legal institutions that make a much bigger difference to the US's prosperity than welfare programs alone.
Regarding Syria, part of its problems was it lacked durable institutions to prevent its disintegration. Its modest prosperity prior to the Arab Spring proved to be quite fragile because of its institutional deficits.
Regarding the specific assertion millions would die without the current social welfare system, I found only one example here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines) of a US famine occurring prior to the establishment of the modern social welfare system during the 20th century (~1000 fatalities which took place on a remote Alaskan island starting in 1878). If a much poorer US managed to almost entirely avoid famine throughout nearly all of its history, I doubt the present-day (and much wealthier) US would struggle, even without the presence of 20th century social welfare reforms.
Jesus! I didn't mean it literally
Millions of people depend on SS and gov funded health care for their very survival. Those people will be on the streets with no means to support themselves and no healthcare.....you know, like third world nations ;)
Doesn't really matter. I think we all can agree that these safety nets makes our society a better one. Yay for socialism !
-
Our geography in the US is one of the main reasons for our economic strength. The Great Lakes, deep water sea ports, and long, navigable rivers are tremendously beneficial, but what's most important is the fact that we have huge oceans to our east and west. It also helps that we have relatively stable countries that aren't going to try to invade us (at least not in the conventional way) to our north and south.
-
Most people, even in rich countries, own surprisingly little in assets. Consider someone earning $100k a year. Rich, eh? If that person lives paycheck to paycheck, and rents a house, that person might have about $50K in assets, at fire sale prices. Car, clothes, furniture. If Bill Gates has $50 billion in assets, he has as much as one million of those with only $50K in assets each.
The situation is more dire in poor countries. Most people do not think about income producing assets, and only think about the worth of their labor.
'1 percenters own HALF of the world's wealth' is a striking title, but it it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets. That is a decision, even if these people are not fully ware that they have made a decision.
More to the point is inequality of income, not assets.
No, it absolutely IS the inequality of assets that's the problem.
But like Sol has pointed out, and very well IMO, it's not the fact that they have half the assets that's the real problem. It's that having half the wealth gives them 99% of the power.
If the the richest 50 people in the USA have 80% of the say about what rights for the LGTBQ community will be, that goes beyond material wealth. If they can determine the direction that stem cell research can or can't go in. If they can determine the laws and regulations that determine which forms of energy will be the winners or losers, etc. This is the real problem. It undermines our freedom.
And saying "it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets"....are you kidding me.
The difference between me and the children of the Kochs, the Devos's, the Trumps, the Waltons is not a difference in a desire to own productive assets. It's the difference between who is born to who.
It was mentioned in a different post I think, but it's like playing monopoly where 99.999% of the players get invited to start playing with $200 dollars, and all the properties have already been purchased and everything is built up with hotels.
I want to say as explicitly as possible that I have ZERO jealousy or envy that these people get to fly fancy planes and have 50 million dollar toys. The problem is that they get to make decisions about how our society will operate.
The children of the Koch's will have more ability to influence public policy than everyone in the whole state of Michigan combined who isn't worth a billion dollars or more.
And right now policies are being enacted to let these children inherit an even LARGER percentage of their parents wealth.
I would encourage you taking a look at our current political system, compare it the Koch brother's political beliefs, and then make a determination of how much influence they have. The Kochs are libertarians. US governments take 35% of GDP and spend it primarily on the military, transfer payments, healthcare, and education. That's not a libertarian outcome, so the Koch brothers can be said to have marginal influence at best.
You are conflating the views of the Koch family with the oligarchy of several hundred big money donors who've funded anti-tax and anti-social safety net candiates for the last forty years. During that time, we've seen a tremendous increase in the income share of the top households. By itself, this isn't enough to prove one causes another, but the tax reform bill passed by the House today:
1. doubles the exemption on the estate tax until 2027 (when it is eliminated entirely),
2. Lowers the tax rate on pass-through corporations, and
3. lowers the corporate tax rate
These sure sound like Koch priorities to me.
-
If the the richest 50 people in the USA have 80% of the say about what rights for the LGTBQ community will be, that goes beyond material wealth. If they can determine the direction that stem cell research can or can't go in. If they can determine the laws and regulations that determine which forms of energy will be the winners or losers, etc. This is the real problem. It undermines our freedom.
While this may be true, your presumption (or concern is) that the 50 richest people who have all of the say also all agree with each other. Just like the rest of the income/wealth levels there is mix of the top 50 who see things one way vs the other (ie there are rich conservatives and rich liberals). So more likely than not your freedom isn't undermined any more or less that it would be otherwise.
-
I find all of this broohaha about wealth distribution incredibly humorous and fascinating.
- What makes any one individual think they ought to get to choose who has how much and what is fair?
- If you get to choose, then what is fair? The limit is pure (unachievable) communism. Anything else is an arbitrary, unfair number. Does someone with 100x as much wealth as you have 100x more power? Does someone with 1,000,000 as much as you have 10x more power? Maybe they're just smarter about how to get money and how to wield influence and the money is just an irrelevant product of that?
The issue with "wealth inequality" is that there's no objective way to determine what's "equal enough". When there's less wealth, everything is more equal, but that tends to end up in a strongman dictatorship. When there's more wealth, there's much more "inequality" but much less centralization of power. Just look at Trump's election, regardless of whether you like the dope; if there was some Illuminati pulling the strings he wouldn't be in office. No one controls your destiny but you and income inequality has not resulted in a worse-off world EXCEPT when it is inequal by force as in a totalitarian system.
And those referencing the inevitable "revolutions" that result are referring to nations that were not formed to protect the individual's rights from the mob as the US was. That said, the Left in the US is doing its best to undermine individual rights in favor of group rights and warfare that trample the individual and that will lead to bad things. But as long as we have a system that protects the rights of each individual, income inequality isn't an issue. The higher the top end in a capitalist system, the higher the bottom end. Inequality SHOULD always be growing if wealth is being created. It shrinks when wealth is being destroyed.
*Sigh* The demands for central planning of all of our lives and assets is always amusing ... until it becomes reality. Then it's just criminal.
Ah, and one more thing; let's dispel the fiction about the benefits of the Nordic Countries/Canada: These countries have high taxes, no national defense, small, homogeneous populations, and are generally fiscally insolvent. Oh, and the rich in those countries pay for underground or foreign healthcare because healthcare is horribly overburdened and unavailable in most cases. Europe has been a walking disaster for centuries and for some reason the left in the US acts like we should act more like them. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around it.
-
Which scandanavian countries are fiscally insolvent? Iceland's banks went bust during 2008 but its economy bounced back. Denmark & Sweden have private healthcare options, it's not underground? Iceland doesn't I don't think. And as to Europe being a walking disaster for centuries.. I don't know where to start with that one. I'm going to take that as a joke.
There's nothing wrong with disagreement on the left and right of politics as to how to make the world better. Everyone thinks the other side is wrong, but that's ok. For me, on the left, I do see the Scandanavian countries as a very desirable place to live and work but I also see that you can't convert the US to that system because of the size and the values shared by the society.
-
Look at the top 2 people in the United States Buffet and Gates.
Was their money inherited? No.
Did they both start out roughly where I did - money wise yep. Brain wise nope ( both are smarter than me).
Good for them that they made great companies and made themselves and many others rich too!!!
Will they take it with them when they die? Nope.
We are all in the same boat.
Not only are they not taking it with them, but also they're giving it away.
-
I find all of this broohaha about wealth distribution incredibly humorous and fascinating.
- What makes any one individual think they ought to get to choose who has how much and what is fair?
- If you get to choose, then what is fair? The limit is pure (unachievable) communism. Anything else is an arbitrary, unfair number. Does someone with 100x as much wealth as you have 100x more power? Does someone with 1,000,000 as much as you have 10x more power? Maybe they're just smarter about how to get money and how to wield influence and the money is just an irrelevant product of that?
The issue with "wealth inequality" is that there's no objective way to determine what's "equal enough". When there's less wealth, everything is more equal, but that tends to end up in a strongman dictatorship. When there's more wealth, there's much more "inequality" but much less centralization of power. Just look at Trump's election, regardless of whether you like the dope; if there was some Illuminati pulling the strings he wouldn't be in office. No one controls your destiny but you and income inequality has not resulted in a worse-off world EXCEPT when it is inequal by force as in a totalitarian system.
And those referencing the inevitable "revolutions" that result are referring to nations that were not formed to protect the individual's rights from the mob as the US was. That said, the Left in the US is doing its best to undermine individual rights in favor of group rights and warfare that trample the individual and that will lead to bad things. But as long as we have a system that protects the rights of each individual, income inequality isn't an issue. The higher the top end in a capitalist system, the higher the bottom end. Inequality SHOULD always be growing if wealth is being created. It shrinks when wealth is being destroyed.
*Sigh* The demands for central planning of all of our lives and assets is always amusing ... until it becomes reality. Then it's just criminal.
Ah, and one more thing; let's dispel the fiction about the benefits of the Nordic Countries/Canada: These countries have high taxes, no national defense, small, homogeneous populations, and are generally fiscally insolvent. Oh, and the rich in those countries pay for underground or foreign healthcare because healthcare is horribly overburdened and unavailable in most cases. Europe has been a walking disaster for centuries and for some reason the left in the US acts like we should act more like them. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around it.
The nation wants cutthroat competition. We want to live in a dog-eat-dog world. Therefore, the correct response to all of this is to throw back your beer, slam the glass down onto the bar, and say "Well, okay then. Let's do this." If people want competition, then give them competition. Most of the very left-wing socialist types are actually extremely intelligent people, so it's time for them to use that intelligence to their personal advantage and if they want to actually gain influence then they need to take power by getting the money.
This is already happening. Left-wing activist investors have been steadily increasing their influence with Vanguard to the point where they actually achieved 20% vote this year in favor of divesting of companies that fund genocide. If people want control, then they need to get the money. Period.
-
Ah, and one more thing; let's dispel the fiction about the benefits of the Nordic Countries/Canada: These countries have high taxes, no national defense, small, homogeneous populations, and are generally fiscally insolvent. Oh, and the rich in those countries pay for underground or foreign healthcare because healthcare is horribly overburdened and unavailable in most cases. Europe has been a walking disaster for centuries and for some reason the left in the US acts like we should act more like them. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around it.
I'm born in and live in one of the Nordic countries. I agree with the part of your post that i omitted, but not the quoted part. This summary sound a bit like a right wing information bubble. I'm very critical about our current situation, and I could go on at lengths about the up-fuckery that has been committed, but the quote in general is incorrect.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.html
Yep. No surprise here. The rich get richer....
Context matter a bunch here and more likely than not most people on this forum are part of the guilty 1% (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)....
Global top 1% for income in US$ - $32,400.
Global Top 1% for net worth - $770,000 (includes home equity)
So really not that high of a bar.
Fwiw, I think purchasing power parity is a better comparison. Apparently US$55,000 is the global median income by that measure for individuals. As the article below says, $220,000 for a family of four.
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/771271476908686029/Segal.pdf
This forum has some families with incomes of $220k (currently MMM's!), but most households here are below that. I think.
Clearly even if household income of forum members is $32k, we are a privileged group. The article's research concluded that individual income of US$15,600 in 2012 was in the global top 10%, or $62,400 for a family of four.
Fwiw, the $32k might be a little inaccurate based on the following. Apparently median individual income in US alone was about $31,000 in 2015.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
That means half of Americans had $31,000 income. US population is 326 million, so 163 million Americans receive $31,000 or more.
https://www.census.gov/popclock/
World population is about 7.6 billion, so 1% of that is 76 million. Seems like either 25%+ of Americans are in the $31,000-32,400 range and less than 25% are above it, with no one else in the world exceeding the $32,400 mark, or some of the statistics are inaccurate. My guess is that the $32,400 number is a little off.
Probably doesn't change of any of the fundamental arguments about fairness, how to organize society, etc.
-
Poverty creates motivation is the single stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life and shows a galling lack of knowledge around systemic inequality and its generational affect on mental and physical health.
For a forum that's supposed to be predisposed to be about decoupling from the rat race and the pit falls of income there are a lot of people who are not seeing the forest from the trees here.
-
Don't claim Canadians aren't spending their fair share on military. They're ranked 16th in the world based on military spending.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
-
Let's go back to the several years that I had $0, was homeless at times and I was so dang happy when I could just get my hands on a Dr. Pepper every now and then, let alone some food...... I never had an attitude about people with money. I just don't understand why people worry or even think about anyone else's money situation. Why does it matter if others have $1 or $1 billion? What is it anyone else's business? If those that worry about others would worry about their own bank account they might have a little more money. Spend that time selling something instead of thinking about what others have that you don't.
Here is how I changed my bank account, I hung out with people that had money and they never knew I was homeless. I started doing the things they did, worked my (*) off and here I am today, one of the top few! I didn't make them feel sorry for me or ask them for things.... I rode my bike to work or walked and worked 120+ hour weeks. The first 3 years I owned my cleaning business I worked 365 days a year and on Christmas I had to clean a church 2 times instead of having one of my workers do it so they could have the day off. I worked hard then so I don't have to now.
It matters because they have an outsized influence on public policy and the policies they've chosen to push seek to beggar the rest of us so they can have more money and more power. It spells the end of the liberal democratic style of government and economics we've had for the past 80 years or more.
-
The irony of people on a forum dedicated to reaching financial independence and being the 1% complaining about the wealth of the 1% is off the scale. If you are worried about this and on this board you need to examine your precepts and world view.
-
The irony of people on a forum dedicated to reaching financial independence and being the 1% complaining about the wealth of the 1% is off the scale. If you are worried about this and on this board you need to examine your precepts and world view.
I suspect most, like me, only really give a shit about the 1% who control our country. That does matter. A lot.
-
Poverty creates motivation is the single stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life and shows a galling lack of knowledge around systemic inequality and its generational affect on mental and physical health.
For a forum that's supposed to be predisposed to be about decoupling from the rat race and the pit falls of income there are a lot of people who are not seeing the forest from the trees here.
I agree. Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'. Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence.
-
I agree. Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'. Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence.
Why? Do the laws of economics not exist in many places around the world?
Can you give an example?
-
The irony of people on a forum dedicated to reaching financial independence and being the 1% complaining about the wealth of the 1% is off the scale. If you are worried about this and on this board you need to examine your precepts and world view.
Does it count as satire even if the writer doesn't know they are being satirical?
-
I agree. Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'. Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence.
Why? Do the laws of economics not exist in many places around the world?
Can you give an example?
Here's one:
Being black or brown definitely puts you at a automatic disadvantage....that's well proven. For my own experience, Peru has a level of racism on par with the old deep south. Being white in South America puts you at the top of the list....more so than in the US.
-
This thread cracks me up. We are on a forum where one of the tenets is getting rich with VTSAX, which holds every evil megacorp there ever was. Yet somehow we have a bunch of saints claiming the injustices of the world are everyone else's fault. Pick your cause people, LOL!
-
What makes you think I hold VTSAX?
What makes you think because I'm on the forum I'm necessarily a hypocrite?
Seems you're assuming a lot about my wealth, it's amount, it's allocation and my ambitions.
That seems remarkably unfair.
-
I agree. Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'. Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence.
Why? Do the laws of economics not exist in many places around the world?
Can you give an example?
Economics is not the be all and end all.
Generational trauma leads to significant barriers: increased rates of FAS, ADHD, ODD, lower life expectancy, increased rates of drug use, sexual abuse, neglect, development delay, homelessness.
Children (as in people <18) experiencing homelessness, whose parents have abused them, who are in and out of foster care do not have the same opportunities people like me (stable home, great education, doors already opened for me) have. It's simple, it's evident and it's not really up for debate.
I don't know of a 'law of economics' that applies to the psychological and health effects of poverty over the medium to long term.
-
I agree. Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'. Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence.
Why? Do the laws of economics not exist in many places around the world?
Can you give an example?
Here's one:
Being black or brown definitely puts you at a automatic disadvantage....that's well proven. For my own experience, Peru has a level of racism on par with the old deep south. Being white in South America puts you at the top of the list....more so than in the US.
I get some people have a disadvantage to overcome, I have my own disadvantages as I'm sure you do as well. I'm not trying to compare myself to someone in another country or culture, but I'm interested in an example where they have "No chance to get ahead".
To me, that is like saying "there are no problems or challenges in a community that common people are willing to pay for". I have a hard time envisioning such a place.. With one exception, cultures that have a different set of values where they don't care about "getting ahead". So for that disqualifies that culture because its not important to them.
-
Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.
Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??
-
The irony of people on a forum dedicated to reaching financial independence and being the 1% complaining about the wealth of the 1% is off the scale. If you are worried about this and on this board you need to examine your precepts and world view.
Does it count as satire even if the writer doesn't know they are being satirical?
That's how I'm viewing it.
-
Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.
Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??
lol this is dumb as
-
UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!
are you high or something?
-
Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.
Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??
Um, replace Bill Gates with Mark Zuckerberg in that statement.
It's still true. But Zuck is the steward of a platform through which many of us manage relationships. We use those relationships to stay in touch, to process events, and to, yes, persuade and identify people in an attempt to build a society more like the one we want.
MZ has been granted a lot of material wealth for his genius in building that social media platform. I would argue his control over the platform comes with a significant responsibility to society.
-
Economics is not the be all and end all.
Generational trauma leads to significant barriers: increased rates of FAS, ADHD, ODD, lower life expectancy, increased rates of drug use, sexual abuse, neglect, development delay, homelessness.
Children (as in people <18) experiencing homelessness, whose parents have abused them, who are in and out of foster care do not have the same opportunities people like me (stable home, great education, doors already opened for me) have. It's simple, it's evident and it's not really up for debate.
I don't know of a 'law of economics' that applies to the psychological and health effects of poverty over the medium to long term.
Sorry I missed this yesterday....
You a make a couple good points which I mostly agree with, but the contrarian in me wants to question a few assumptions. To say its "not really up for debate" is pretty self defeating and un-creative in my opinion.
Economics is not the be all and end all.
It is when we are discussing this in the context of wealth, no matter what your situation laws of economics still apply. A person with the proper motivation and drive can still get ahead relative to others in his community. Now "getting ahead" might mean different things to different people/cultures, it might not be in a way that we feel is the "right way". I wont argue that we have a greater opportunity to build personal wealth than almost any country on the planet. But, I would argue that any person can bloom where they are planted(so to speak).
The things you listed are extreme disadvantages to what you and I probably grew up experiencing, but for someone growing up in that situation it also offers a HUGE opportunity because a lot of the problems are self evident and need solving. Serving people and solving problems in exchange for other goods and services is the basis of an economy on a small scale. Granted, they are also HUGE problems to solve. Given the right resources, someone with the right drive and motivation could make a world of difference.
Sometimes though, the community lives and dies, and for them that might be enough. Sometimes they might be happier without the outside influence because it is a big scary unknown. Sometimes the outside influence trying to convince them they have it "bad", and if only they just followed our way of thinking it would be "good", is actually a cause of instability within historically happy communities. So I tend to feel that unless someone is asking for help, its best to mind my own business and let them live the way they choose to live.
But like I said, I wont argue that we have 100x more opportunities to build personal wealth in this country, in large part because our culture values the creation of wealth. Comparing our personal wealth to other countries isn't really a apple to apple comparison.
-
Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.
Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??
Can't tell if serious..
-
Gotta say, I am surprised at the number of Republicans on this board. I thought it would skew heavily progressive.
-
Gotta say, I am surprised at the number of Republicans on this board. I thought it would skew heavily progressive.
Oh, I dunno.. I think it skews more progressive, ever poke your head into one of the ACA or political threads?
-
Gotta say, I am surprised at the number of Republicans on this board. I thought it would skew heavily progressive.
There are a good number of Randian-"if you only try harder and pull on your boot straps harder you can overcome anything to become anything" types here.
@GRS: Sounds like you watched "American Gangster" last night :-)
-
Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.
Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??
lol this is dumb as
a. This response is dumb, as evidenced by the inability to properly form a sentence.
UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!
are you high or something?
b. If you could use the English language properly, you could have used some reading comprehension to discover that I never said money doesn't provide "any" power. I said "it gives them all the power" is bullshit.
There aren't different speed limits for the rich. They actually (as a whole) get taxed at a higher rate than the average person. The teacher's union has a LOT more influence on Congress when forming laws than Mark Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Buffet. The wealthy are, historically, more likely to be involved in politics (including calling representatives, writing letters, etc) than the poor and that also makes their voices more likely to be heard (because the silent are rarely heard). However, contrary to what some morons seem to believe, there is no "New World Order" where the rich control everything and manipulate countries just to help themselves out a tiny bit.
Wealth can help to buy "influence" (which isn't nearly as influential as a lot of people think it is), but real power is either earned with votes or with the free choices of the masses (who, for the most part, are not rich).
-
@GRS: Sounds like you watched "American Gangster" last night :-)
Never seen it, is it good? Sounds good.
-
...
There aren't different speed limits for the rich.
Story goes that BackInTheDay Steve Jobes bought an identical new car every few months as in California you have a grace period to get licence plates, this let him speed, use the carpool lane solo and park in handicap spots without getting tickets. Everyone knew it was him but legally no-plate-no-ticket.
-
Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.
Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??
lol this is dumb as
a. This response is dumb, as evidenced by the inability to properly form a sentence.
UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!
are you high or something?
b. If you could use the English language properly, you could have used some reading comprehension to discover that I never said money doesn't provide "any" power. I said "it gives them all the power" is bullshit.
There aren't different speed limits for the rich. They actually (as a whole) get taxed at a higher rate than the average person. The teacher's union has a LOT more influence on Congress when forming laws than Mark Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Buffet. The wealthy are, historically, more likely to be involved in politics (including calling representatives, writing letters, etc) than the poor and that also makes their voices more likely to be heard (because the silent are rarely heard). However, contrary to what some morons seem to believe, there is no "New World Order" where the rich control everything and manipulate countries just to help themselves out a tiny bit.
Wealth can help to buy "influence" (which isn't nearly as influential as a lot of people think it is), but real power is either earned with votes or with the free choices of the masses (who, for the most part, are not rich).
The rich, both individuals and corporations, absolutely use their wealth to affect policy to help themselves and their political beliefs. Campaign donations, lobbyists, what do you think is going on there? The DeVos family donated millions to Trump's campaign then after he wins she's brought on as Secretary of education. Do you think that was a coincidence?
-
...
There aren't different speed limits for the rich.
Story goes that BackInTheDay Steve Jobes bought an identical new car every few months as in California you have a grace period to get licence plates, this let him speed, use the carpool lane solo and park in handicap spots without getting tickets. Everyone knew it was him but legally no-plate-no-ticket.
No plate is necessary to get a speeding ticket... It's a funny story, if completely untrue and unrealistic.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
-
Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.
Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??
lol this is dumb as
a. This response is dumb, as evidenced by the inability to properly form a sentence.
UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!
are you high or something?
b. If you could use the English language properly, you could have used some reading comprehension to discover that I never said money doesn't provide "any" power. I said "it gives them all the power" is bullshit.
There aren't different speed limits for the rich. They actually (as a whole) get taxed at a higher rate than the average person. The teacher's union has a LOT more influence on Congress when forming laws than Mark Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Buffet. The wealthy are, historically, more likely to be involved in politics (including calling representatives, writing letters, etc) than the poor and that also makes their voices more likely to be heard (because the silent are rarely heard). However, contrary to what some morons seem to believe, there is no "New World Order" where the rich control everything and manipulate countries just to help themselves out a tiny bit.
Wealth can help to buy "influence" (which isn't nearly as influential as a lot of people think it is), but real power is either earned with votes or with the free choices of the masses (who, for the most part, are not rich).
The rich, both individuals and corporations, absolutely use their wealth to affect policy to help themselves and their political beliefs. Campaign donations, lobbyists, what do you think is going on there? The DeVos family donated millions to Trump's campaign then after he wins she's brought on as Secretary of education. Do you think that was a coincidence?
Can you get the difference between influence and total power? If so, you'll see your post brings nothing to the current discussion. By the way, poor campaign staffers also got themselves jobs they were probably unqualified for by helping out the "then candidate". It's not just for the rich.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
-
This touches on part of what is probably the largest threat to current civilized society. Wealth inequality is often destabilizing. As a larger concentration of resources is allocated to a smaller portion of the population, the likelihood of scarcity is increased in other portions of the population. Humans don't behave civilized when scarcity is introduced and that has lead to the demise of previous civilizations in the past. It is possible to have a small portion of the populations' wealth increase without decreasing the wealth of the rest of the population, however that is not currently happening. Basic needs like education, healthcare, and opportunity to work are eroding right now for the majority even though our gross resources have not declined. This is part of why the Occupy movement sprung up, and also part of why political polarization is increasing.
One of the most valuable qualities of the MMM method is establishing a sustainable lifestyle for yourself and your family. To that end, mind must be paid to others in our communities. If the steps we take to accumulate wealth and achieve FIRE hurt others in the community around us, then the fruits of our efforts will erode in time. We all depend on society around us to function properly in order to live our own dreams.
-
...
There aren't different speed limits for the rich.
Story goes that BackInTheDay Steve Jobes bought an identical new car every few months as in California you have a grace period to get licence plates, this let him speed, use the carpool lane solo and park in handicap spots without getting tickets. Everyone knew it was him but legally no-plate-no-ticket.
No plate is necessary to get a speeding ticket... It's a funny story, if completely untrue and unrealistic.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/steve-jobs-car-apple-ceo-license-plates/story?id=14834608 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/steve-jobs-car-apple-ceo-license-plates/story?id=14834608)
"no-plate-no-ticket" please give me a little credit - you did not think that I was saying he could not be pulled over by a cop? This is clearly a method to circumvent automated systems.
-
...
There aren't different speed limits for the rich.
Story goes that BackInTheDay Steve Jobes bought an identical new car every few months as in California you have a grace period to get licence plates, this let him speed, use the carpool lane solo and park in handicap spots without getting tickets. Everyone knew it was him but legally no-plate-no-ticket.
No plate is necessary to get a speeding ticket... It's a funny story, if completely untrue and unrealistic.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/steve-jobs-car-apple-ceo-license-plates/story?id=14834608 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/steve-jobs-car-apple-ceo-license-plates/story?id=14834608)
"no-plate-no-ticket" please give me a little credit - you did not think that I was saying he could not be pulled over by a cop? This is clearly a method to circumvent automated systems.
Or he just liked having a a new car all the time... even the sole person who has been the source of this story over the years didn't say "why" he was getting a new car every six months. Which, by the way, doesn't require a person being a "1%er" even if they just really wanted to avoid red light tickets etc (back when the "loophole" still existed anyway).
It's not "clearly" done for any reason unless you have a memoir of his explaining his reasoning for doing so. There are people who won't wear the same outfit twice, who are poor. No reason that "I want a new car every six months" couldn't be all the reason needed for someone to get a new car every 6 months.
-
Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.
Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??
lol this is dumb as
a. This response is dumb, as evidenced by the inability to properly form a sentence.
UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!
are you high or something?
b. If you could use the English language properly, you could have used some reading comprehension to discover that I never said money doesn't provide "any" power. I said "it gives them all the power" is bullshit.
There aren't different speed limits for the rich. They actually (as a whole) get taxed at a higher rate than the average person. The teacher's union has a LOT more influence on Congress when forming laws than Mark Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Buffet. The wealthy are, historically, more likely to be involved in politics (including calling representatives, writing letters, etc) than the poor and that also makes their voices more likely to be heard (because the silent are rarely heard). However, contrary to what some morons seem to believe, there is no "New World Order" where the rich control everything and manipulate countries just to help themselves out a tiny bit.
Wealth can help to buy "influence" (which isn't nearly as influential as a lot of people think it is), but real power is either earned with votes or with the free choices of the masses (who, for the most part, are not rich).
The rich, both individuals and corporations, absolutely use their wealth to affect policy to help themselves and their political beliefs. Campaign donations, lobbyists, what do you think is going on there? The DeVos family donated millions to Trump's campaign then after he wins she's brought on as Secretary of education. Do you think that was a coincidence?
Can you great the difference between influence and total power? If so, you'll see your pay brings nothing to the current discussion. By the way, poor campaign staffers also got themselves jobs they were probably unqualified for by helping out the "then candidate". It's not just for the rich.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
Yes, it's just that the line between the two seems to be getting thinner and thinner to me with this current administration.
-
@jlcnuke: It is a beautiful Fall day where I am; I am going to go outside and enjoy. I wish you happiness.
-
A few token social justice issues given is enough distraction to lure some from the path of truth.
The truth is, the government was created by corporations, for corporations, and our version of it was intended to insulate the democratic process from the common man. It was described as an inconvenience of democracy that is needed to overcome.
You own food production, and you own education systems, and you own information systems. In our free society you control subliminally. The only way to "fight" is to stop contributing... tax dollars. If we all stopped working tomorrow the machine would crumble, how neat and fun would that be to trade services and goods instead of funny money? It would be so inconvenient, but remember, being a badass is about taking on some willing inconvenience.
-
@jlcnuke: It is a beautiful Fall day where I am; I am going to go outside and enjoy. I wish you happiness.
I hope you have a great day as well :D
-
The only way to "fight" is to stop contributing... tax dollars. If we all stopped working tomorrow the machine would crumble, how neat and fun would that be to trade services and goods instead of funny money? It would be so inconvenient, but remember, being a badass is about taking on some willing inconvenience.
...Funny story, I once suggested this same thing on another forum, well lets just say it didn't go over so well.
But hey, I'm you, we feed the machine through our own individual daily activities.
-
Have you seen this video?
https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
-
Is it money that's the problem, or is it the system that allows one to buy favors?
-
What makes you think I hold VTSAX?
What makes you think because I'm on the forum I'm necessarily a hypocrite?
Seems you're assuming a lot about my wealth, it's amount, it's allocation and my ambitions.
That seems remarkably unfair.
Feel free to share your "guilt free" portfolio.
-
@ Index
Interesting video... I'm not sure how I feel about the distribution of wealth, and I don't know if I'm all that concerned about it.
But here is what bothers me when I read some of the articles and videos out there pushing this narrative. The thing that bothers me is the interchanging of the terms "wealth" and "income". It isn't clear to me when I read or watch these that the author actually understands the difference, or maybe they do, but they fail to make it clear to the listener that there is a difference and explain that difference. I'm not sure most people understand the difference. I'm not sure how they came up with their figures either... There are a lot of unknowns.
Another part of the equation that is unclear to me(even after reading the video sources) is does the top 1% really "own" that much wealth or do they have a "controlling interest" in that wealth? That would be a pretty big distinction. But, I can see how using the term "own" would have a better affect on the audience. I have no idea which statement would be true.
-
What makes you think I hold VTSAX?
What makes you think because I'm on the forum I'm necessarily a hypocrite?
Seems you're assuming a lot about my wealth, it's amount, it's allocation and my ambitions.
That seems remarkably unfair.
Feel free to share your "guilt free" portfolio.
It's a red herring argument mate, it was based on assumptions and it's a bad argument: because we (may) engage in investments that are imperfect that means that we are therefore hypocrites for criticising the state of wealth inequality. Doesn't add up, isn't fair and assumes a lot about what I/we want, believe and how we act.
Wealth inequality is increasing. That's not a good thing for society at all. The idea that poor people need the rich, or that rich people are aspirational role models isn't healthy or productive. The notion that poor people can just bring themselves out of poverty is really unfair and very much wrong. What makes these things worse is that they are a feedback loop: the greater the inequality the more difficult it becomes for people to change their position on the social ladder.
I know I've been incredibly snarky in this thread, and I don't apologise, a lot of what was written by others has been incredibly stupid and wasn't thought through.
Is it money that's the problem, or is it the system that allows one to buy favors?
They are inseparable. Wealth (in whatever form) has always bought increased power. I know a lot of people think Marx is full of it, but that's his main critique of society and his reasoning about why the average person is politically disempowered. Democracy in the USA, Australia and England is tied very much to capitalism, and they aren't the same, as long as our political systems allow them to be equal then we will have the wealthy controlling more of the political scene than they should. After all who owns the TV stations? The Newspapers? Who buys advertising? Who outspends governments to direct people's votes? It's not the layman, it's not even the MMM'ers with our globally enviable wealth. But it does happen and I think it's a huge problem.
-
Is it money that's the problem, or is it the system that allows one to buy favors?
They are inseparable. Wealth (in whatever form) has always bought increased power. I know a lot of people think Marx is full of it, but that's his main critique of society and his reasoning about why the average person is politically disempowered. Democracy in the USA, Australia and England is tied very much to capitalism, and they aren't the same, as long as our political systems allow them to be equal then we will have the wealthy controlling more of the political scene than they should. After all who owns the TV stations? The Newspapers? Who buys advertising? Who outspends governments to direct people's votes? It's not the layman, it's not even the MMM'ers with our globally enviable wealth. But it does happen and I think it's a huge problem.
Who is watching the TV stations, reading the newspapers, and clicking on the advertising? All these things are driven primarily by profit, and show the information that generates the most of it. How many people want to read quality well researched, well written political journalism, vs. heavily biased, low data information that we are mostly exposed to? If the public prefers dumbed down biased news, that's what they will get. Just like with everything else. Auto corporations are not secretly trying to destroy the environment by making giant inefficient cars, they are simply making what sells.
The true power of the wealthy lies in the fact that our government as it is today, exposes various levers the wealthy can pull to give themselves *legal* advantages. Need a lower tax for your industry? Need heavier regulations to create an unfair burden on smaller competitors? Want to trash an area because it is more profitable but need permission? Lobby the government. Give money to candidates. Etc.
You might look at it and go "well, the problem is that these people have so much money they can buy their way into government". I look at it and say "why does the government have these levers to begin with?".
If the government would not be involved in things that can be influenced with money, then money wouldn't influence them. For example, if the tax code for corporations included no deductions/credits/subsidies of any kind and simply had a rate of X%, how do you cheat that? If the government does not regulate your industry, how do you gain an unfair regulatory advantage? The more government you have, the more levers are exposed, the more they can be pulled by the wealthy. Go after the levers, not the money, if you are unhappy with the system.
-
@ Index
The thing that bothers me is the interchanging of the terms "wealth" and "income". It isn't clear to me when I read or watch these that the author actually understands the difference, or maybe they do, but they fail to make it clear to the listener that there is a difference and explain that difference. I'm not sure most people understand the difference.
Hear, hear!
At one point, the video narrator even says "how much they make" instead "how much they have" in reference to the 1%. Disappointing.
Seems like it feeds into the old Marxist belief that the bulk of income created by industry is siphoned off by the owners of capital. The majority of income goes to labor, not capital. I agree with the commenters who feel that poor people are still getting stiffed by the system, but mean or even median incomes wouldn't double or triple if All Those Rich People (including us forum members) shared more of our dividends. It might increase labor's overall income by 15-20 percent. I strongly agree that human health and welfare would be much better if the poorest got a disproportionate share of the benefit. But the average worker would be helped more by the comfort of a decent safety net and the opportunity of widespread access to tools/education, not a by a large income change, even if the wider distribution of income from wealth were successfully spread out.
@ Index
I'm not sure most people understand the difference.
For most people, I think income is much more relevant, because most people's spending is based primarily on income instead of wealth. Sure enough, according to graphs in the video, people's perception is much closer to the distribution of income than the distribution of wealth.
-
Who is watching the TV stations, reading the newspapers, and clicking on the advertising? All these things are driven primarily by profit, and show the information that generates the most of it. How many people want to read quality well researched, well written political journalism, vs. heavily biased, low data information that we are mostly exposed to? If the public prefers dumbed down biased news, that's what they will get. Just like with everything else. Auto corporations are not secretly trying to destroy the environment by making giant inefficient cars, they are simply making what sells.
But that abdicates any responsibility that corporations or CEOs should have, and that's not OK with me. It's not as simple as saying 'people want what they want and corps don't change that' because new products change that, clever marketing changes that, influence changes that. Obviously people are more than blank receivers of company's sludge, yet at the same time there's a reason things like advertising, paid editorial content, etc, are effective in changing people's behaviour - because the population does not have a defined set of desires, their desires are open to flux, influence and change.
And if a company can change people's desires, than a company has a responsibility to be ethical with their intentions.
The true power of the wealthy lies in the fact that our government as it is today, exposes various levers the wealthy can pull to give themselves *legal* advantages. Need a lower tax for your industry? Need heavier regulations to create an unfair burden on smaller competitors? Want to trash an area because it is more profitable but need permission? Lobby the government. Give money to candidates. Etc.
I would agree that the government has a role in decoupling wealth and spending from the political process, but that doesn't invalidate my claim that wealth leads to increased power. In fact it supports that claim, you're just laying the blame somewhere else.
You might look at it and go "well, the problem is that these people have so much money they can buy their way into government". I look at it and say "why does the government have these levers to begin with?".
Good question, government and wealth are good bedfellows, definitely a two way street. So many 'ministers of planning' get cushy jobs in real estate development when they quit, so many businesses bribe individuals here and in the US - they are both at fault and wealth inequality opens this are of wrongdoing even further.
If the government would not be involved in things that can be influenced with money, then money wouldn't influence them. For example, if the tax code for corporations included no deductions/credits/subsidies of any kind and simply had a rate of X%, how do you cheat that? If the government does not regulate your industry, how do you gain an unfair regulatory advantage? The more government you have, the more levers are exposed, the more they can be pulled by the wealthy. Go after the levers, not the money, if you are unhappy with the system.
The government can't not be involved in money. A huge part of its role is the allocation of money, the funding of projects, the green-lighting of development, zoning, etc, etc, even things that aren't directly involving money changing hands still involve the accumulation or spending of money. Or both!
How do you gain unfair regulatory advantage? Who knows! But that's not what I'm talking about because it's too narrow, it's too specific, it's the trees and I'm talking about the forest. Setting aside government completely for a hypothetical wealth still leads to increased power, it's inevitable. Better health outcomes, better education, substantially better connections, less mental health problems, etc - these all accumulate daily to provide huge advantages for wealthy people of non-wealthy (working poor, below poverty line, whatever). Some degree of inequality is inevitable, but I'm uncomfortable with the growing gap between rich and poor, I don't think it bodes well because fewer people will be subject to these benefits of improved wealth like they were in the 20th century.
-
@ Index
The thing that bothers me is the interchanging of the terms "wealth" and "income". It isn't clear to me when I read or watch these that the author actually understands the difference, or maybe they do, but they fail to make it clear to the listener that there is a difference and explain that difference. I'm not sure most people understand the difference.
Hear, hear!
At one point, the video narrator even says "how much they make" instead "how much they have" in reference to the 1%. Disappointing.
Seems like it feeds into the old Marxist belief that the bulk of income created by industry is siphoned off by the owners of capital. The majority of income goes to labor, not capital. I agree with the commenters who feel that poor people are still getting stiffed by the system, but mean or even median incomes wouldn't double or triple if All Those Rich People (including us forum members) shared more of our dividends. It might increase labor's overall income by 15-20 percent. I strongly agree that human health and welfare would be much better if the poorest got a disproportionate share of the benefit. But the average worker would be helped more by the comfort of a decent safety net and the opportunity of widespread access to tools/education, not a by a large income change, even if the wider distribution of income from wealth were successfully spread out.
@ Index
I'm not sure most people understand the difference.
For most people, I think income is much more relevant, because most people's spending is based primarily on income instead of wealth. Sure enough, according to graphs in the video, people's perception is much closer to the distribution of income than the distribution of wealth.
I agree the author of the video was interchanged wealth with income a few times, but I don't think it was done to be purposely misleading. The video was focused on wealth inequality. In response to income, the video did state the top 1% take home nearly a quarter of the total income in the country. After googling, this appears to be accurate (somewhere a bit over 20%):
(https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Share-of-total-us-income-1913-2015-1-768x424.png) (https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/share-of-total-us-income-tippy-top-19193-2015-768x424.png) (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/161221173430-inequality-piketty-1-780x439.png)
Lets break that into income then shall we? The national total personal income (TPI) was $15.9T in 2016.
- The top .01% took home about 5% of that - about $800B. How many people are in the top 0.01%? .0001*350M is 35K, so they are taking in $22M per person
- The 1 to 0.01% take home about 16% of the income - about $2.5T. There are about 3.5M in this bracket taking home $715k per person
- The 90-99% take home about 26% of the TPI - about $4.1T. With 31.5M people in this bracket they take home $130k per person
- The 50-90% take home 40% of the TPI - about $6.4T. There are 140M in this group the breakdown is $45k per person
- The bottom 0-50% took home about 13% of all the income - about $2.1T. This split between 175M people; about $12K per person
This means the .01% income earner makes about 170x the average well to do MMM poster is bringing in (assumed 90-99%). This 0.01% earner makes 490x what the 50-90% "middle class" income earner makes.
So in review. The wealth gap is jaw dropping, but dismissing the wealth gap and saying income is the only thing that really matters to most people:
For most people, I think income is much more relevant, because most people's spending is based primarily on income instead of wealth. Sure enough, according to graphs in the video, people's perception is much closer to the distribution of income than the distribution of wealth.
Doesn't really settle the argument that the distribution of wages or wealth in this country are anywhere close to ideal.
-
Is it money that's the problem, or is it the system that allows one to buy favors?
They are inseparable. Wealth (in whatever form) has always bought increased power. I know a lot of people think Marx is full of it, but that's his main critique of society and his reasoning about why the average person is politically disempowered. Democracy in the USA, Australia and England is tied very much to capitalism, and they aren't the same, as long as our political systems allow them to be equal then we will have the wealthy controlling more of the political scene than they should. After all who owns the TV stations? The Newspapers? Who buys advertising? Who outspends governments to direct people's votes? It's not the layman, it's not even the MMM'ers with our globally enviable wealth. But it does happen and I think it's a huge problem.
Who is watching the TV stations, reading the newspapers, and clicking on the advertising? All these things are driven primarily by profit, and show the information that generates the most of it. How many people want to read quality well researched, well written political journalism, vs. heavily biased, low data information that we are mostly exposed to? If the public prefers dumbed down biased news, that's what they will get. Just like with everything else. Auto corporations are not secretly trying to destroy the environment by making giant inefficient cars, they are simply making what sells.
The true power of the wealthy lies in the fact that our government as it is today, exposes various levers the wealthy can pull to give themselves *legal* advantages. Need a lower tax for your industry? Need heavier regulations to create an unfair burden on smaller competitors? Want to trash an area because it is more profitable but need permission? Lobby the government. Give money to candidates. Etc.
You might look at it and go "well, the problem is that these people have so much money they can buy their way into government". I look at it and say "why does the government have these levers to begin with?".
If the government would not be involved in things that can be influenced with money, then money wouldn't influence them. For example, if the tax code for corporations included no deductions/credits/subsidies of any kind and simply had a rate of X%, how do you cheat that? If the government does not regulate your industry, how do you gain an unfair regulatory advantage? The more government you have, the more levers are exposed, the more they can be pulled by the wealthy. Go after the levers, not the money, if you are unhappy with the system.
Why does it matter so much what people want vs. what they need? A toddler wants to stick a fork in a power socket? Do we allow it because it's what she wants? Of course not. We step in and stop her from hurting herself and redirect her to what she actually needs.
This is how it has to be with most people. Lots and lots of people don't know what is best for them, so they need to be regulated so they won't be self-destructive.
Want people to invest for retirement? Make retirement savings automatic out of their paychecks so it's taken care of.
Want people to stop polluting our air so you won't have to deal with ozone days from all the pickup trucks on the road? (A major annoyance of mine.) Force auto manufacturers to follow CAFE.
It's all very simple. You have to save people from themselves, because in the long run it saves all of us.
-
I don't think that trusting a corporation that doesn't love me and doesn't care about me to lead me to save myself is very wise, frankly.
-
I don't think that trusting a corporation that doesn't love me and doesn't care about me to lead me to save myself is very wise, frankly.
You should own the corporation. Then you'd feel better about it, probably.
-
- The top .01% took home about 5% of that - about $800B. How many people are in the top 0.01%? .0001*350M is 35K, so they are taking in $22M per person
I think there is something wrong with your numbers:http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/10/21/two-thousand-americans-made-over-10-million-last-year/ (http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/10/21/two-thousand-americans-made-over-10-million-last-year/)
-
I don't think that trusting a corporation that doesn't love me and doesn't care about me to lead me to save myself is very wise, frankly.
You should own the corporation. Then you'd feel better about it, probably.
That's not in the cards my friend.
-
I really think the Citizen's United case was a bad decision on the part of the Supreme Court. Corporations and rich citizens already have an undue influence on the legislation that is put forth and passed. Having corporations be considered citizens puts past any pretense who is running the show. Yes they don't get votes. But they can influence legislation to weaken and defund public and upper education so that people are less educated and able to inform themselves, push legislation to eliminate net neutrality, and eliminate the fairness doctrine for news, and transfer the costs of pollution from the corporation to the communities. North Carolina passed a law that we as citizens, are not allowed to even know what the fracking companies are injecting into the ground. Corporations don't care about Americans as citizens with rights. Their priority is boosting short term profits and encourage consumerism. It's pretty grotesque.
-
- The top .01% took home about 5% of that - about $800B. How many people are in the top 0.01%? .0001*350M is 35K, so they are taking in $22M per person
I think there is something wrong with your numbers:http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/10/21/two-thousand-americans-made-over-10-million-last-year/ (http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/10/21/two-thousand-americans-made-over-10-million-last-year/)
This is a good exercise with regard to income inequality and why average compared to median can be very misleading when dealing with $ figures. It's virtually always severely right-tailed when you include the high end be it the top quintile, percentile, .01%, .0001%, whatever.
It would be quite feasible that the vast majority of the top .01% make less than 10 million while the average of that group is still 22 million due to some making hundreds of millions or billions.
350 mil is a little bit on the high side for rounding but at a national population of 325, 326 mil the point still stands.
-
I think a large portion of the Millennial generation would have an easier time generating their own wealth if they would stop donating to Twitch streamers and invested the money instead. I'm from Generation X, though, so I probably just don't comprehend the importance of paying people so you can watch them play video games.
-
I probably just don't comprehend the importance of paying people so you can watch them play video games.
If it helps any, consider that you probably have no problem paying people so you can watch them cosplay comic book characters. And that's not even a live performance, you're literally paying to watch a recording.
-
I probably just don't comprehend the importance of paying people so you can watch them play video games.
If it helps any, consider that you probably have no problem paying people so you can watch them cosplay comic book characters. And that's not even a live performance, you're literally paying to watch a recording.
That's a performance with a script and storytelling and a budget of $150 million for special effects. It's not the same as what we tried to avoid when I was a child, which was being stuck for hours watching your older brother play Super Mario while you endlessly had to wait for your turn. It's stupid to pay people to watch them play video games. Fact.
-
I probably just don't comprehend the importance of paying people so you can watch them play video games.
If it helps any, consider that you probably have no problem paying people so you can watch them cosplay comic book characters. And that's not even a live performance, you're literally paying to watch a recording.
That's a performance with a script and storytelling and a budget of $150 million for special effects. It's not the same as what we tried to avoid when I was a child, which was being stuck for hours watching your older brother play Super Mario while you endlessly had to wait for your turn. It's stupid to pay people to watch them play video games. Fact.
I kinda put in on par with watching a professional sporting event to be honest. Both activities are objectively better in every way when you do them yourself . . . but for some reason there is a subset of the population who likes watching someone else play a game.
-
I probably just don't comprehend the importance of paying people so you can watch them play video games.
If it helps any, consider that you probably have no problem paying people so you can watch them cosplay comic book characters. And that's not even a live performance, you're literally paying to watch a recording.
That's a performance with a script and storytelling and a budget of $150 million for special effects. It's not the same as what we tried to avoid when I was a child, which was being stuck for hours watching your older brother play Super Mario while you endlessly had to wait for your turn. It's stupid to pay people to watch them play video games. Fact.
If your brother could do a Super Mario speed run in under five minute he could probably get people to pay to watch him. Kind of like it would be dumb to pay to watch a guy run a 15sec 100meter sprint but lots of people pay to watch Bolt do it under 10 sec. Is it also dumb to have professional Chess, Bridge and Football players? It may not be my thing but I can see how others might like it and be willing to pay for it.
-
That's a performance with a script and storytelling and a budget of $150 million for special effects.
You don't think video games have multimillion dollar budgets? GTA V reported over 250 million dollars in production costs. That game made over $3 billion for the studio. No movie has ever made that much money, not Avatar or Titanic or Star Wars or anything. I think you might fundamentally misunderstand the video game industry.
I've never used twitch myself, but my understanding is that it is a free streaming service supported by ads, and viewers can pay to watch without ads (with some portion of the purchase going to the streamer). So you're not really paying to watch someone play video games, anymore than you're paying to watch cat videos if you buy youtube red (don't). Maybe someone more familiar with it can chime in.
I kinda put in on par with watching a professional sporting event to be honest. Both activities are objectively better in every way when you do them yourself . . . but for some reason there is a subset of the population who likes watching someone else play a game.
I've paid to watch people play an instrument. It is also objectively better when done yourself, and yet virtually everyone understands the appeal of watching a musical performance. In fact, people are even more likely to pay to watch someone play an instrument if it's an instrument that they CAN play themselves.
In either case, music or movies or video games, the amount of money that an individual is willing to pay to experience the best version of that thing is probably higher than they would pay to watch their brother do it, or even do it themselves. I don't think it's really that big of a mystery. I can sing, but I'm no Axl Rose. I can run, but I'm no Usain Bolt. People probably aren't interested in paying to watch me do those things, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense that somebody gets paid to do them.
-
I probably just don't comprehend the importance of paying people so you can watch them play video games.
If it helps any, consider that you probably have no problem paying people so you can watch them cosplay comic book characters. And that's not even a live performance, you're literally paying to watch a recording.
That's a performance with a script and storytelling and a budget of $150 million for special effects. It's not the same as what we tried to avoid when I was a child, which was being stuck for hours watching your older brother play Super Mario while you endlessly had to wait for your turn. It's stupid to pay people to watch them play video games. Fact.
If your brother could do a Super Mario speed run in under five minute he could probably get people to pay to watch him. Kind of like it would be dumb to pay to watch a guy run a 15sec 100meter sprint but lots of people pay to watch Bolt do it under 10 sec. Is it also dumb to have professional Chess, Bridge and Football players? It may not be my thing but I can see how others might like it and be willing to pay for it.
Probably not the reason for wealth disparity...
Sol,
I was in the depths of the internet last night and saw this picture:
(https://kentuckybluepeople.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/inbred-brothers5.png?w=187&h=183)
I've always wondered where your profile pic came from...
-
I've always wondered where your profile pic came from...
Somewhere, deep in this forum, is my post about those guys and the photographer who took that picture. Short version: they're mentally handicapped brothers from South Africa, who are now quite elderly.
-
For anyone else wondering WTF that photo is: http://outlastrager.tumblr.com/post/86197646058/who-are-the-real-twins
-
Why aren't those concerned with the wealth disparity donating their stache until they are at the worldwide median wealth level? As mentioned before this forum is made up of mostly 5 percenters.
-
Is it also dumb to have professional Chess, Bridge and Football players?
In all honesty, YES, it is dumb. In this country, we really need to change things around and do more things for ourselves instead of passively watching other people. I appreciate theatre as much as the next person -- and theatre has existed for thousands and thousands of years as a form of entertainment -- but the sedentary lifestyle where we sit around all day and watch other people use their brains or other people exercise or other people play games, instead of doing things for ourselves is absolutely self-destructive.
I stopped watching sports a long time ago, because honestly what difference does it make? Why should I give up my hard-earned money to watch someone else have fun playing playground games and then gossip about how much money they have or who they are dating or how big their house is? Keep that money for yourself and put it toward your own empowerment. Stop complaining about 1 percenters and BECOME a 1 percenter.
That's my opinion, anyway.
-
The national total personal income (TPI) was $15.9T in 2016.
- The top .01% took home about 5% of that - about $800B. How many people are in the top 0.01%? .0001*350M is 35K, so they are taking in $22M per person
- The 1 to 0.01% take home about 16% of the income - about $2.5T. There are about 3.5M in this bracket taking home $715k per person
- The 90-99% take home about 26% of the TPI - about $4.1T. With 31.5M people in this bracket they take home $130k per person
- The 50-90% take home 40% of the TPI - about $6.4T. There are 140M in this group the breakdown is $45k per person
- The bottom 0-50% took home about 13% of all the income - about $2.1T. This split between 175M people; about $12K per person
- The top .01% took home about 5% of that - about $800B. How many people are in the top 0.01%? .0001*350M is 35K, so they are taking in $22M per person
I think there is something wrong with your numbers:http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/10/21/two-thousand-americans-made-over-10-million-last-year/ (http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/10/21/two-thousand-americans-made-over-10-million-last-year/)
This is a good exercise with regard to income inequality and why average compared to median can be very misleading when dealing with $ figures. It's virtually always severely right-tailed when you include the high end be it the top quintile, percentile, .01%, .0001%, whatever.
It would be quite feasible that the vast majority of the top .01% make less than 10 million while the average of that group is still 22 million due to some making hundreds of millions or billions.
350 mil is a little bit on the high side for rounding but at a national population of 325, 326 mil the point still stands.
The exact dollar amount per person in immaterial. The number of people in each group is just the denominator, but the disparity exists no matter how you slice it:
I.E: the 99-99.99% is 99x (.99/.01) the size of the 0.01% but brings home only 3x income meaning the income gap between the 99%-99.99% and the .01% is 32X (.99/.01*0.8T/2.5T)
The income disparity is enormous if we think about it like this:
Top 0.01% compared to:
- 99-99.99 - 32x
- 90-99 - 175x
- 50-90 - 500x
- 0-50 - 1905x
Top 1% compared to:
- 90-99 - 7.25x
- 50-90 - 20x
- 0-50 - 78x
I think when most people here use income of people they are exposed to when thinking about wealth inequality. The top 10% for households make about 300k per year. When using this as a reference point I think the numbers become much closer to our perception.
Top 10% compared to:
The 0.01% of this country, 32k people by population, on average make in 2 days what the typical high paid professional in the 90-99% makes in 1 year. That is pretty astounding!
To take it a step further - the 0.01% want to be taxed at the same rate as the 90-99%
-
I've paid to watch people play an instrument. It is also objectively better when done yourself, and yet virtually everyone understands the appeal of watching a musical performance. In fact, people are even more likely to pay to watch someone play an instrument if it's an instrument that they CAN play themselves.
Do you pay to watch them play, or to hear the music that they make?
I suspect that for most it's the latter. If you can't make the music that they make, then there's a real reason to pay to hear them play. If on the other hand, you pay to watch their fingers move up and down the instruments . . . then I guess you would probably enjoy watching a sports game too. :P
-
Do you pay to watch them play, or to hear the music that they make?
Well both, obviously. I have paid to buy recorded music, and I have paid to attend live performances. Is it really so hard to understand why you might want to watch the world's best musician perform in person, instead of just listening to a recording?
-
I've paid to watch people play an instrument. It is also objectively better when done yourself, and yet virtually everyone understands the appeal of watching a musical performance. In fact, people are even more likely to pay to watch someone play an instrument if it's an instrument that they CAN play themselves.
Do you pay to watch them play, or to hear the music that they make?
I suspect that for most it's the latter. If you can't make the music that they make, then there's a real reason to pay to hear them play. If on the other hand, you pay to watch their fingers move up and down the instruments . . . then I guess you would probably enjoy watching a sports game too. :P
I dont think it is just about fingers or sounds but rather generally entertainment and a shared experience with those around you.
You can get the basic sounds and visual from youtube but that is commonly not as entertaining as a live show (YMMV - but I think most would agree that a live show can be better than youtube).
-
Article in NY Times caught me off guard by claiming much of the cause of income inequality in the US is more regulation than "socialistic" countries like Canada - but that the regulations benefit groups of professionals such as financial managers, even though financial managers usually complain about the regulations. Presumably drives some of the wealth inequality.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/upshot/income-inequality-united-states.html
-
Article in NY Times caught me off guard by claiming much of the cause of income inequality in the US is more regulation
I didn't find that argument surprising at all. We've had that exact same conversation in the ACA threads about how the giant moat around medical practitioners artificially inflates their salaries, and the cost of care, by excluding cheaper alternatives. Engineers need to get a PE license. Stockbrokers need to be licensed. Even tradesmen like electricians and plumbers need to go through an apprenticeship program and be certified. All of these regulations are designed to increase the cost of services, and thus the wages of their practitioners.
-
Article in NY Times caught me off guard by claiming much of the cause of income inequality in the US is more regulation
I didn't find that argument surprising at all. We've had that exact same conversation in the ACA threads about how the giant moat around medical practitioners artificially inflates their salaries, and the cost of care, by excluding cheaper alternatives. Engineers need to get a PE license. Stockbrokers need to be licensed. Even tradesmen like electricians and plumbers need to go through an apprenticeship program and be certified. All of these regulations are designed to increase the cost of services, and thus the wages of their practitioners.
While the net effect of licensing for a profession may increase the costs of services, that isn't the reason that we have licencing. There's significant public risk in allowing anyone to call themselves a structural engineer and build a 60 story office building. There is valid reason to certify doctors and nurses too. It's an attempt to increase public safety by ensuring that at least a certain minimum required level of training has taken place. That's a very important and beneficial reason to have certification.
You can certainly make the argument that in many cases things have gone beyond the needs of public safety though.
-
While the net effect of licensing for a profession may increase the costs of services, that isn't the reason that we have licencing. There's significant public risk
I'm not saying we shouldn't have licensing. I'm saying the licensing agencies shouldn't artificially restrict the number of people who get licenses. The barriers to entry, in many of these fields (including mine), are much higher than they need to be. That's done to keep the supply low, and the costs high.
Why don't we let doctors from other countries practice medicine in America, for example? Because the massive influx of foreign talent would dramatically deflate physician salaries, that's why. It's the same with basically every other field.
-
Why aren't those concerned with the wealth disparity donating their stache until they are at the worldwide median wealth level? As mentioned before this forum is made up of mostly 5 percenters.
How does that action address the critique we've made?
-
While the net effect of licensing for a profession may increase the costs of services, that isn't the reason that we have licencing. There's significant public risk
I'm not saying we shouldn't have licensing. I'm saying the licensing agencies shouldn't artificially restrict the number of people who get licenses. The barriers to entry, in many of these fields (including mine), are much higher than they need to be. That's done to keep the supply low, and the costs high.
Why don't we let doctors from other countries practice medicine in America, for example? Because the massive influx of foreign talent would dramatically deflate physician salaries, that's why. It's the same with basically every other field.
I agree with Sol 100%. Both of my "careers" required licenses to pretty much keep competition out. The licensing body for my second career, apega, does nothing except collecting dues. Ya you can argue that being a geo or pe require certain technical competence and good ethics but really it's just common sense. The funny thing is that you see tons of people proud/happy to finally get the p.geo or p.engg designation and treat it as if its something special.
We have machines (algo) that make consistently more accurate diagnose on a huge variety of diseases than trained doctors; we've known these algo are better than doctors since the 80s, yet the society continues to rely on people to do the work. If it is science-based, it can be automated, and it should be automated to reduce errors.
Anyway, I will admit I "collect" titles, designations and degrees because I am vain. And that's pretty much what these licenses are good for, vanity.
edit: As YN pointed out, odds are EVERYONE here belongs to the global 1%, so congratz. Now, what are we going to do with the other pesky 99%?
-
I really think the Citizen's United case was a bad decision on the part of the Supreme Court. Corporations and rich citizens already have an undue influence on the legislation that is put forth and passed. Having corporations be considered citizens puts past any pretense who is running the show. Yes they don't get votes. But they can influence legislation to weaken and defund public and upper education so that people are less educated and able to inform themselves, push legislation to eliminate net neutrality, and eliminate the fairness doctrine for news, and transfer the costs of pollution from the corporation to the communities. North Carolina passed a law that we as citizens, are not allowed to even know what the fracking companies are injecting into the ground. Corporations don't care about Americans as citizens with rights. Their priority is boosting short term profits and encourage consumerism. It's pretty grotesque.
citizens united does not consider corporations to be citizens. All it states is that people do not lose their free speech rights simply because they join together with other people to exercise those rights. If anything, citizen united does a little bit to even the playing field, as non-super rochvoeople can pool resources to engage in advocacy.
-
I agree with Sol 100%. Both of my "careers" required licenses to pretty much keep competition out. The licensing body for my second career, apega, does nothing except collecting dues. Ya you can argue that being a geo or pe require certain technical competence and good ethics but really it's just common sense. The funny thing is that you see tons of people proud/happy to finally get the p.geo or p.engg designation and treat it as if its something special.
Huh? That's a new one. APEGA member here. They are a PITA to deal with and I think they could do a better job of allowing international folks to practice engineering and geo science, but I am sure as heck glad that not anyone who can turn on a computer is allowed to approve the design of a bridge or decide if the soil conditions are suitable for a dam to be constructed in a particular spot just because they have a load of common sense and are ethical people.
I had a friend from Europe with a bit of an odd ball engineering degree who applied to APEGA to get licensed. The process they laid out for her was more of a hassle/effort than I thought was justified, but it wasn't ridiculous.
In terms of people from Canada/US who want to practice getting a P.Eng is just a formality. Holding a P.Eng. is not a big deal getting an engineering degree is a big deal.
-
LBYM. Live Below Your Means. Well below. Invest on a regular basis. Pay no attention to the daily fluctuations in the stock market. This is a long-term marathon, not a 100 yard dash, for most of us.
-
Many of us here may not realize it but we are probably among the richest 1% in the WORLD. What does it take to be among the richest 1% in the world? With over 7 billion people you are talking about being one of the richest 70 million people in the world. What does your net worth have to be to crack the top 70 million?
-
Many of us here may not realize it but we are probably among the richest 1% in the WORLD. What does it take to be among the richest 1% in the world? With over 7 billion people you are talking about being one of the richest 70 million people in the world. What does your net worth have to be to crack the top 70 million?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
By income 1% = 30,250 Euros = ~$36,400USD
By wealth 1% = 720,000 Euros = ~$866,200USD
-
This thread is interesting when compared to the other recent thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/net-worth-increases-for-the-year/?topicseen) where people disclose how much their net worth increased in 2017. Mustachians having increases far in excess of 100x the median annual Liberian household income were quite common.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bkmfth4c_0iujdalwjgf0a.png)
-
Many of us here may not realize it but we are probably among the richest 1% in the WORLD. What does it take to be among the richest 1% in the world? With over 7 billion people you are talking about being one of the richest 70 million people in the world. What does your net worth have to be to crack the top 70 million?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
By income 1% = 30,250 Euros = ~$36,400USD
By wealth 1% = 720,000 Euros = ~$866,200USD
I'm a one percenter by income! Hooray!
All those Liberians should stop buying Starbucks and Avocado Toast.
-
On the topic of regulation and licensing, we might be able to scale back a bit...https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/05/13/you-need-300-hours-of-training-and-a-license-to-shampoo-hair/#596367c31ebc (https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/05/13/you-need-300-hours-of-training-and-a-license-to-shampoo-hair/#596367c31ebc)
-
Many of us here may not realize it but we are probably among the richest 1% in the WORLD. What does it take to be among the richest 1% in the world? With over 7 billion people you are talking about being one of the richest 70 million people in the world. What does your net worth have to be to crack the top 70 million?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
By income 1% = 30,250 Euros = ~$36,400USD
By wealth 1% = 720,000 Euros = ~$866,200USD
It's interesting that I'm currently a 1%er by income, and about the time I'll become a 1%er by wealth I'll stop being one by income.
-
Many of us here may not realize it but we are probably among the richest 1% in the WORLD. What does it take to be among the richest 1% in the world? With over 7 billion people you are talking about being one of the richest 70 million people in the world. What does your net worth have to be to crack the top 70 million?
Anyone who has read through this thread certainly realizes this by now, it's only been repeated about 17,000 times.
We've also discussed in detail how little this means when it comes to the argument that wealth disparity=bad. The top .01% or less is the problem. In an admittedly oversimplified way I think the new tax bill is a direct result of this. Low to upper middle class earners got a slight cut (just enough to get votes for republicans from the largest demographic) professionals earning $200,000-$500,000 got a slight increase (again to satisfy lower income folks who disparage this group as the "rich people") and outside of that most of the advantage went to the .01%*.
*not an exact figure