Global wealth inequality: Looks like the top 1% are headed for a majority stake.

[glenn1]

Well that's all good, but the creators aren't the majority. It's the boardroom buddies who get paid even if they are incompetent. Those 400 I mentioned are how many hundreds of times smarter than you? How many thousands of time meritorious?

In the real world of predator and prey you and I are minnows to be swallowed alive. The difference is that I try to swim away from the maw while you look down on those not heading with you towards the shark.

Was the now billionaire but then welfare mom creator of the Harry Potter books part of the "boardroom buddies" gang you speak of?

 

[PokerGuy]

Oxfam Study Finds Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth by 2016


So you're in a room of 100 people.
1 of them has more than half of the pile of resources.
The other half gets what's left. If one of that half asks for more, the majority-holder tells them to stop being greedy, and that their greed will destabilize the whole system.
Then with each passing year, the one individual insists on taking more and more of the available resources, sometimes lamenting about the hardships of having to manage so much wealth.

What you leave out of your scenario is how that 1 person came to hold more resources than the other people. That's the relevant part. Did the person provide good ideas, or desired goods/services, or did the person simply rob the others? If the person came to hold those resources because they did more and provided services to others, is that a problem? The mere fact that one person in that room has more than the others doesn't say anything.

Someone will probably "challenge" the majority-holder for control, usually by force.

Yep, criminals usually try to take what is not theirs. The more subtle criminals use government to do their taking for them

Yet every time we implement measures which attempt to reduce its incidence, they are slowly worn away and we end up right back at the same conclusion. Rinse, repeat.

Could it be that the reason such measures don't work is because they are attacking the symptom rather than the cause?

 

[PokerGuy]

What makes you think they earned it?

In the absence of evidence of wrongdoing, it is reasonable to assume that someone who has wealth has earned it.

The wealthy's apologists

The mere fact that you think someone who's wealthy needs an "apologist" (or has anything to apologize for) speaks volumes. It's some sort of perverted logic where being wealthy is somehow wrong or bad and requires justification or apology.

apparently presuming that mere possession of wealth is proof it was earned. That is an extremely naive view, at best.

.... as opposed to what? If a see a guy driving an expensive BMW down the road, do you assume that he robbed a bank to get the money to buy the car? Most normal people would assume he bought it from his earnings, knowing that obviously that's not always a valid assumption.

 

[Newell Steamer]

There is no trickle down economics.

There are no job creators.

There are job maintainers however.

The idea of the majority of the rich taking a fair % of their wealth and making sure it goes to the workers, middle class, poor and even government - nope, that doesn't really exist.

Now, I have no problem with the rich trying to make more money. Look, they are smart enough, they take risks,. so, let them reap their rewards. What I do have a problem with, is that they enjoy all these tax cuts and benefits from the government, for the purposes of (the lie that is) trickle down economics,.. but, don't follow through.

Furthermore, they lower their costs, but increase their price to the market. Which, again, is fine. But, they aren't increasing salaries.

So, let us look at the walls they've put up;
- lower taxes paid by the rich to the government, which results in social programs being cut
- lower their costs, by shipping jobs overseas, which results in the local populace having little to no more money
- increase their prices to the market, with items that need to be bought (food, rent, etc.), which results in the local populace getting into debt to just get by

,.. what do they think will happen next? Or, what is the ultimate goal?

I think we'll get to the point where you aren't even working for money anymore. You will be working for vouchers or credits to get the vital things in life; like food, shelter and basic medical care.

This just isn't sustainable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Was the now billionaire but then welfare mom creator of the Harry Potter books part of the "boardroom buddies" gang you speak of?

What about the scientists who created all the drugs and technology you enjoy? You think all of them are getting rewarded like Gates or famous fantasy writers? We aren't a meritocracy in a true sense, where discoveries are rewarded by their originator in proportion to their importance. I'm sure you'll produce a handful of exceptions, because there always are, but exceptions they remain.

 

[unokitty]

Pew Research

The latest data reinforce the larger story of America’s middle class household wealth stagnation over the past three decades. The Great Recession destroyed a significant amount of middle-income and lower-income families’ wealth, and the economic “recovery” has yet to be felt for them. Without any palpable increase in their wealth since 2010, middle- and lower-income families’ wealth levels in 2013 are comparable to where they were in the early 1990s.

It could help explain why, by other measures, the majority of Americans are not feeling the impact of the economic recovery, despite an improvement in the unemployment rate, stock market and housing prices...

While most American families remain financially stuck, upper-income families have seen their median wealth double from $318,100 in 1983 to $639,400 in 2013.

Governments make the laws which contribute to how the economy and how wealth is distributed...

One question:
How stable is the trend of wealth being increasingly concentrated in the 1%?

Another question:
An ever shrinking middle class, what impact will that have on the US?

Final question:
The American dream, work hard and get ahead, that working for the middle class anymore?

Uno

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In the absence of evidence of wrongdoing, it is reasonable to assume that someone who has wealth has earned it.

If someone invents a cure for cancer I hope they make a billion. Instead it's most likely that he'll get a nice bonus, become famous and the people in the boardroom of Merck will become far far wealthier than him. But look at those who are really wealthy like Soros. How he earned his money wasn't illegal, but in no way is it meritorious. Shifting around assets isn't nearly as beneficial as someone like Musk who is wealthy but innovative. I can't see them being comparable except in terms of how much they own.

 

[rudeguy]

So the argument is the government should redistribute wealth?

If I know I can get paid just by sitting and waiting on the government to give me money, why would I try to better myself?

Haven't the socialist idiots learned anything from the past? This stuff does not work. It has never worked. It will never work.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So the argument is the government should redistribute wealth?

If I know I can get paid just by sitting and waiting on the government to give me money, why would I try to better myself?

Haven't the socialist idiots learned anything from the past? This stuff does not work. It has never worked. It will never work.

That wouldn't by my approach. Taxing the wealthy means giving it to the government which may or may not be used to our general benefit. Instead I would change the tax structure to reward or punish based on such things as job creation, stability, and compensation of employees outside the top exec levels. The idea is to create a system which is managed like an ecology. Change the predator/prey relationship with a new system.

I've proposed this before. If a corporation does as I suggest they get a tax break to compensate for hiring or developing infrastructure and the like. If they work towards the opposite ends then a crushing corporate (not individual) tax is the result, to be directly given out to the rank and file employees. The compensation scheme would need to be worked out, but those who earn more pay more in taxes and that would apply to garden variety peons like you and me. Now Darwin in relationship to economics should not be understated. It's supremely important. If boards act contrary to the interests of the corporation in a significant way the shareholders don't care why that is. If the system is universal then just inflating the golden parachute and moving on to another spot provided by cronies won't work either, the ecosystem is uniform in that regard. Money will flow from corporations who's only neuron is focused on cutting costs to those who adapt and keep earning. That in turn will drive those stockholders to dump the old way of thinking and those who can't see their way to functioning differently with different attitudes to keep the company afloat. Likewise those who adapt and do positive things would be rewarded. They'll still make money but so will everyone else.

Don't try to get even, try to get better off is what I'm thinking.

 

[glenn1]

That wouldn't by my approach. Taxing the wealthy means giving it to the government which may or may not be used to our general benefit. Instead I would change the tax structure to reward or punish based on such things as job creation, stability, and compensation of employees outside the top exec levels. The idea is to create a system which is managed like an ecology. Change the predator/prey relationship with a new system.

I've proposed this before. If a corporation does as I suggest they get a tax break to compensate for hiring or developing infrastructure and the like. If they work towards the opposite ends then a crushing corporate (not individual) tax is the result, to be directly given out to the rank and file employees. The compensation scheme would need to be worked out, but those who earn more pay more in taxes and that would apply to garden variety peons like you and me. Now Darwin in relationship to economics should not be understated. It's supremely important. If boards act contrary to the interests of the corporation in a significant way the shareholders don't care why that is. If the system is universal then just inflating the golden parachute and moving on to another spot provided by cronies won't work either, the ecosystem is uniform in that regard. Money will flow from corporations who's only neuron is focused on cutting costs to those who adapt and keep earning. That in turn will drive those stockholders to dump the old way of thinking and those who can't see their way to functioning differently with different attitudes to keep the company afloat. Likewise those who adapt and do positive things would be rewarded. They'll still make money but so will everyone else.

Don't try to get even, try to get better off is what I'm thinking.

States and municipalities have tried your approach for years with decidedly mixed results. Almost every locality in America has a factory or some kind of business only there for tax breaks meant to "spur job growth".

As for employees not reaping benefits commensurate with the value they create, that's what comes with being in an employee relationship. You don't bear the risk and get paid regardless but the employer owns the IP you create. Those wanting to enjoy both upside and risk can be entrepreneurs.

 

[hal2kilo]

That wouldn't by my approach. Taxing the wealthy means giving it to the government which may or may not be used to our general benefit. Instead I would change the tax structure to reward or punish based on such things as job creation, stability, and compensation of employees outside the top exec levels. The idea is to create a system which is managed like an ecology. Change the predator/prey relationship with a new system.

I've proposed this before. If a corporation does as I suggest they get a tax break to compensate for hiring or developing infrastructure and the like. If they work towards the opposite ends then a crushing corporate (not individual) tax is the result, to be directly given out to the rank and file employees. The compensation scheme would need to be worked out, but those who earn more pay more in taxes and that would apply to garden variety peons like you and me. Now Darwin in relationship to economics should not be understated. It's supremely important. If boards act contrary to the interests of the corporation in a significant way the shareholders don't care why that is. If the system is universal then just inflating the golden parachute and moving on to another spot provided by cronies won't work either, the ecosystem is uniform in that regard. Money will flow from corporations who's only neuron is focused on cutting costs to those who adapt and keep earning. That in turn will drive those stockholders to dump the old way of thinking and those who can't see their way to functioning differently with different attitudes to keep the company afloat. Likewise those who adapt and do positive things would be rewarded. They'll still make money but so will everyone else.

Don't try to get even, try to get better off is what I'm thinking.

Actually this has been done before through tax policy. When the maximum tax rate was 90%, the companies would reinvest as much as possible b,ack into the business to avoijd paying anything close to those rates. Gues what the company expands, and hires mores employees, and maybe pay out a little more to theit employees.

 

[rudeguy]

That wouldn't by my approach. Taxing the wealthy means giving it to the government which may or may not be used to our general benefit. Instead I would change the tax structure to reward or punish based on such things as job creation, stability, and compensation of employees outside the top exec levels. The idea is to create a system which is managed like an ecology. Change the predator/prey relationship with a new system.

I've proposed this before. If a corporation does as I suggest they get a tax break to compensate for hiring or developing infrastructure and the like. If they work towards the opposite ends then a crushing corporate (not individual) tax is the result, to be directly given out to the rank and file employees. The compensation scheme would need to be worked out, but those who earn more pay more in taxes and that would apply to garden variety peons like you and me. Now Darwin in relationship to economics should not be understated. It's supremely important. If boards act contrary to the interests of the corporation in a significant way the shareholders don't care why that is. If the system is universal then just inflating the golden parachute and moving on to another spot provided by cronies won't work either, the ecosystem is uniform in that regard. Money will flow from corporations who's only neuron is focused on cutting costs to those who adapt and keep earning. That in turn will drive those stockholders to dump the old way of thinking and those who can't see their way to functioning differently with different attitudes to keep the company afloat. Likewise those who adapt and do positive things would be rewarded. They'll still make money but so will everyone else.

Don't try to get even, try to get better off is what I'm thinking.

Obamacare should have taught you that the government decided who gets what just doesn't work. We don't need to have weird sliding scale tax laws based on goals that don't work (see every education program ever tried). We don't need to have another 15,000 page bill that ends up doing nothing but padding the pockets of the chosen few.

The free market decides who makes money, not the government.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Obamacare should have taught you that the government decided who gets what just doesn't work. We don't need to have weird sliding scale tax laws based on goals that don't work (see every education program ever tried). We don't need to have another 15,000 page bill that ends up doing nothing but padding the pockets of the chosen few.

The free market decides who makes money, not the government.

There is no free market and never was and what exists is merely a modernized feudal system.

 

[rudeguy]

There is no free market and never was and what exists is merely a modernized feudal system.

Come on man...you're better than that.

You are saying its not possible for a lower middle class guy to become stinking rich? You're saying its not possible for a stinking rich guy to become lower middle class?

If I was making $30k/year I would honestly consider just not working and letting the government send me money, give me free food, free healthcare, free rent. But I make more than that so I work hard and try to increase my income even more..

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Come on man...you're better than that.

You are saying its not possible for a lower middle class guy to become stinking rich? You're saying its not possible for a stinking rich guy to become lower middle class?

If I was making $30k/year I would honestly consider just not working and letting the government send me money, give me free food, free healthcare, free rent. But I make more than that so I work hard and try to increase my income even more..

So let's say you make 60k a year. Are you telling me the the people who look for ways to cut costs (you and me) really work a thousand times harder than you? When you talk about a middle class guy becoming stinking rich, sure it's possible. It happens. The chances of getting his ass canned for someone in India or a place like that are a lot higher though and "middle class" isn't getting larger or wealthier. The guy that gave his job away so he could have a fat bonus did pretty well though. What I suggest isn't to attempt to take away his money but to change what his company benefits from. If it benefits from benefiting you then he gets his bonus and you become better off. Win/win.

What I think will happen is that the sharks (who are both corporate and government- different sides of the same coin) will keep people fighting each other while they feed. You won't even know you've been eaten.

 

[rudeguy]

So let's say you make 60k a year. Are you telling me the the people who look for ways to cut costs (you and me) really work a thousand times harder than you? When you talk about a middle class guy becoming stinking rich, sure it's possible. It happens. The chances of getting his ass canned for someone in India or a place like that are a lot higher though and "middle class" isn't getting larger or wealthier. The guy that gave his job away so he could have a fat bonus did pretty well though. What I suggest isn't to attempt to take away his money but to change what his company benefits from. If it benefits from benefiting you then he gets his bonus and you become better off. Win/win.

What I think will happen is that the sharks (who are both corporate and government- different sides of the same coin) will keep people fighting each other while they feed. You won't even know you've been eaten.

Generally the lower you get paid, the harder you work. Its the old "work harder, not smarter" line. I don't know a single person who has gotten filthy rich only by working hard. That's just a fallacy.

I can promise you the government regulating who has what cannot work. It never has in any way, shape or form. A company does what's best for itself, a person does what's best for himself, the government does what's best for itself. Believing that there is some magic formula that will make those 3 separate things live in peace and harmony is just failed logic.

 

[Bowfinger]

In the absence of evidence of wrongdoing, it is reasonable to assume that someone who has wealth has earned it.

That's arguable, but irrelevant in this case. There is boundless evidence of wrongdoing. The papers are full of scandals, irregularities, and allegations. That certainly doesn't prove guilt in all cases, but it's ample reason to question how much wealth is truly earned vs. how much is gained through questionable means.

The mere fact that you think someone who's wealthy needs an "apologist" (or has anything to apologize for) speaks volumes. It's some sort of perverted logic where being wealthy is somehow wrong or bad and requires justification or apology.

Sheer nonsense, and a perfect example of acting as an apologist for wealth. (By the way, "apologist" does not mean one who apologizes. It means one who defends or makes excuses.) The fact of the matter is that the wealthy have an army of apologists who do defend them. It is part of the foundation of today's GOP, that anyone who questions wealth must be attacked, and all questions raised must be dismissed.

In short, the only volumes it speaks is that I am aware of reality. The ones who decided the wealthy need apologists are those who rush to serve as apologists.

What also speaks volumes is that you deleted three key words between the fragment you quoted above and the rest of the sentence below: "ignore that issue," i.e., that "earn" is an ambiguous word that covers a whole spectrum of methods from pure to corrupt. That is my point, and true to my words, you've ignored that in favor of tangents.

.... as opposed to what? If a see a guy driving an expensive BMW down the road, do you assume that he robbed a bank to get the money to buy the car? Most normal people would assume he bought it from his earnings, knowing that obviously that's not always a valid assumption.

I make no assumptions, which is exactly my point. I do not assume he legitimately earned it through the sweat of his brow, nor do I assume he bought it with dirty money. I neither attack him, nor do I serve as his apologist.

The issue, as seen in this thread, is whenever someone mentions anything related to wealth concentration, taxes, etc., there's always a phalanx of apologists who rush to defend the wealthy as "earning" their money. They never want to discuss what "earn" really means or how we distinguish between earned wealth and wealth gained through questionable means. Yet that is the key issue, precisely because there is such overwhelming evidence that the system has been rigged.

So, back to my original post:

What makes you think they earned it? Does a poker player who stacks the deck earn his winnings? How about a lottery employee who rigs a game and collects a winning ticket? A financial adviser who skims money from customer accounts illegally? How about if that same adviser buys influence to get a law making his skimming legal? Does he then earn what he skims?

Does a mob boss earn the money he gains by controlling his territory? How about a monopolist who controls his market through financial power rather than physical coercion? How about cartel members who conspire together to control markets? Do they earn their profits? How about anyone who uses wealth or power to distort the market in their favor?
​

Care to address this? Does a poker player who stacks the deck earn his winnings?

 

[alcoholbob]

Just wondering, is this in terms of real assets or inflated paper assets? I mean the fed is proudly talking about how they reinflated the stock market bubble by printing a mere 4 trillion dollars but how many of these paper billionaires can cash out without imploding valuations in the stock market?

 

[bshole]

I can promise you the government regulating who has what cannot work. It never has in any way, shape or form. A company does what's best for itself, a person does what's best for himself, the government does what's best for itself. Believing that there is some magic formula that will make those 3 separate things live in peace and harmony is just failed logic.

The government is doing it already.... at the behest of the wealthy. It was the wealthy who initiated the offshoring of good paying middle class jobs in the mid 70s. They pressured the United State government to make changes to the existing law to ease the export of the American jobs. After that initial shot across the bow, the process has simply accelerated via the constant pressure of monied interests who financed ALL candidates on ALL ballots.

This is no conspiracy. The wealthy are doing it right out in front of everybody. They have brazen balls the size of planets. They do not fear us, they have nothing but contempt. We are simply less than human in their world, worker drones whose lives don't matter. The non-monied class are the sheep and the wealthy are the wolves. Currently the government is sleeping with the wolves and feeding with them as well. Catchy metaphor if I do say so myself.

Anyhow, don't worry about it too much. They are all going to die miserable sad deaths just like you and I in the end. Their ride may be a little smoother but the final drop off the cliff will be just as horrific for them as it is for you..... perhaps even more so since they actually have something to live for.

 

[glenn1]

So let's say you make 60k a year. Are you telling me the the people who look for ways to cut costs (you and me) really work a thousand times harder than you? When you talk about a middle class guy becoming stinking rich, sure it's possible. It happens. The chances of getting his ass canned for someone in India or a place like that are a lot higher though and "middle class" isn't getting larger or wealthier. The guy that gave his job away so he could have a fat bonus did pretty well though. What I suggest isn't to attempt to take away his money but to change what his company benefits from. If it benefits from benefiting you then he gets his bonus and you become better off. Win/win.

What I think will happen is that the sharks (who are both corporate and government- different sides of the same coin) will keep people fighting each other while they feed. You won't even know you've been eaten.

I know you're not an idiot, but I may be forced to treat you as such if you keep willfully ignoring the reality that someone who is an employee and bears no risk probably won't get super wealthy. People like you with no skin in the game except for a few hours of half-assed labor at someone else's direction will not and should not share in the spoils of someone who risked everything for their success.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I know you're not an idiot, but I may be forced to treat you as such if you keep willfully ignoring the reality that someone who is an employee and bears no risk probably won't get super wealthy. People like you with no skin in the game except for a few hours of half-assed labor at someone else's direction will not and should not share in the spoils of someone who risked everything for their success.

Why don't you tell us all about our half assed labor that those who run my line of work couldn't do? I mean if you think they could fire me and come and do my job that can't happen. Risked? You mean the parachutes inflated when they run stock prices into the ground? I have "skin in the game". This isn't a game to me. It's the difference between being able to take care of those I am most responsible for, and in my case the public safety when it conflicts with your people giving direction create ever more dangerous conditions where errors happen. For a bonus of course.

You don't know jackshit about me, but I'm learning about you.

 

[TreVader]

Well, the US does have a huge amount of inequality in the wealth distribution. As a whole, I would say that we do in fact have a problem with wealth distribution. However, I do not believe the solution is to completely scrap our financial system or tax system and put direct pressure to re-distribute.


Something must be done tho. There have to be reforms to the tax code. Dividends need to be taxed at much higher rates. Estate tax should be institutided at 50% on the >$5M estates across the board. We could put that money towards infrastructure and education reforms that would benefit the rich and poor alike.

Of course, the rich will find ways around all of this. None of the reforms will work.

Honestly, I have no idea what the solution to this is. I will say that, on a personal level, I would advise people that money can only get you so far in life. It's great to want to do well, but don't spend your life pursuing great wealth at the cost of being happy.

 

[bshole]

I know you're not an idiot, but I may be forced to treat you as such if you keep willfully ignoring the reality that someone who is an employee and bears no risk probably won't get super wealthy. People like you with no skin in the game except for a few hours of half-assed labor at someone else's direction will not and should not share in the spoils of someone who risked everything for their success.

.....like the billionaire bankers who risked the entire monetary system of the United States for their own personal financial enrichment..... and then accepted a government bailout funded by the middle class American worker drones when it blew up in their faces

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I know you're not an idiot, but I may be forced to treat you as such if you keep willfully ignoring the reality that someone who is an employee and bears no risk probably won't get super wealthy. People like you with no skin in the game except for a few hours of half-assed labor at someone else's direction will not and should not share in the spoils of someone who risked everything for their success.

Sorry, but that's an incredibly ridiculous statement and in general, I enjoy your viewpoints. "Half-assed labor at someone else's direction?" Is that what you *really* think? I can speak for myself -- there isn't anyone above me in the hierarchy of the company I work at (Fortune 15) who can do my job, nor can any of them "provide direction" other than "Hey, you need to develop this application" or "Hey, can you meet with client X and discuss our offerings and gather requirements." A monkey could provide that level of "direction." Not to mention the fact that if someone's labor is "half-assed," who is the bigger fool -- the worker or the management who keeps him/her employed? (hint: it is the management)

Could I be replaced by someone else? Sure, but executives can too. Their "direction" is hardly necessary OR valuable in my job and unlike them, I don't have a nice golden parachute waiting for me if I get canned.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sorry, but that's an incredibly ridiculous statement. "Half-assed labor at someone else's direction?" Is that what you *really* think? I can speak for myself -- there isn't anyone above me in the hierarchy of the company I work at (Fortune 15) who can do my job, nor can any of them "provide direction" other than "Hey, you need to develop this application" or "Hey, can you meet with client X and discuss our offerings and gather requirements." A monkey could provide that level of "direction." Not to mention the fact that if someone's labor is "half-assed," who is the bigger fool -- the worker or the management who keeps him/her employed? (hint: it is the management)

Could I be replaced by someone else? Sure, but executives can too. Their "direction" is hardly necessary OR valuable in my job and unlike them, I don't have a nice golden parachute waiting for me if I get canned.

Sorry, that makes you unworthy. If he had his way he'd give about 400 people about half the votes in the US. I cannot understand how he thinks and I don't want to.