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

[BoberFett]

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.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the wealthy 1% consume as much food as the 99%? That they own as many cars as the 99%? That they occupy as many homes as the 99%? That they use as much internet bandwidth as the 99%?

What are these resources they're consuming?

 

[unokitty]

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...

Over half of the members of Congress, who are sent to Washington on the behalf of the common man, are millionaires.

2. Legal Insider Trading? There is currently no accountability or oversight to prohibit members of the U.S. Congress from profiting in the financial markets based upon the inside information they obtain in the course of their daily work.

You seem to speak of the wealthy as if they were somehow separate from US government...

Government of the people for the people by the people?

How about:
Government of the rich for the rich by the rich.

LOL

Uno

 

[Genx87]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the wealthy 1% consume as much food as the 99%? That they own as many cars as the 99%? That they occupy as many homes as the 99%? That they use as much internet bandwidth as the 99%?

What are these resources they're consuming?

The resource example in a room makes little sense imo. There is not a finite amount of wealth in the world . It grows, contracts, and switches hands. Also in this mythical room where wealth is finite. If 1 person owns 50% of the wealth what does that get them anyways? A pile of mythical wealth? Cant eat it, cant drink it. Have to purchase a real resource with that wealth if they want to survive.

 

[Rebel_L]

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.

I find it hard to believe that you think the truly wealthy play with their skin in the game.... the only skin they are playing with is everyone elses. Not to mention that their own skin is usually a hand me down from generations past.

 

[Subyman]

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?

That is what pacifies the people right now. That very thinking. The chances, even with extremely hard work and being smart, of moving far out of one's socioeconomic situation (like you suggested, going from lower class to "stinking rich") is nearly impossible. It looks possible and is the American dream, but that reality is about the same as trying to win the lottery.

Look how popular Shark Tank is, we now idolize billionaires. They are our celebrities and the entire point of the show is for them to bestow upon us plebs a chance to sit at their feet.

Anyone that thinks they can become a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs with hard work and smarts is in for a big disappointment.

I have no problem with income inequality. There should always be an inequality based on how much you put in, but our society shouldn't be at the extremes we are today. How do we fix it? It is hard in a global society where companies can move to different countries and only care about profit instead of their worker base. A good start would be continuing to take political power away from corporations and reduce lobbying.

 

[rudeguy]

You seem to speak of the wealthy as if they were somehow separate from US government...

Government of the people for the people by the people?

How about:
Government of the rich for the rich by the rich.

LOL

Uno

Yep.

When I suggested that politicians should only be paid the median wage in the US, I was told that would result in only "undesirable" people running for office.

I don't want a bunch of rich old guys deciding my fate. I want my peers. I want a guy who has ran a company, made decisions that impact others. Not some schmuck who went to Harvard and never worked a real day in his life.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The resource thing makes little sense imo. There is not a finite amount of wealth in the world . It grows, contracts, and switches hands. Also in this mythical room where wealth is finite. If 1 person owns 50% of the wealth what does that get them anyways? A pile of mythical wealth? Cant eat it, cant drink it. Have to purchase a real resource with that wealth if they want to survive.

What owning 50% of anything means is that everyone else divides what ever is left over. Not only that, but great wealth means access to great power. That means greater control of one's environment to shape it as they wish regardless of what the likes of you or I want. I suggest that this relationship between wealth and power and who controls them is the greatest determining factor in our society. We don't even see it most of the time. It's "the way things are", like the Divine Right of Kings, it's how it ought to be. It's normalcy, but that does not mean it's best for all considered.

 

[Genx87]

I find it hard to believe that you think the truly wealthy play with their skin in the game.... the only skin they are playing with is everyone elses. Not to mention that their own skin is usually a hand me down from generations past.

Can you take this list and tell us how many inherited their wealth to get to "most" were from hand me downs?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#tab:overall

 

[Genx87]

What owning 50% of anything means is that everyone else divides what ever is left over. Not only that, but great wealth means access to great power. That means greater control of one's environment to shape it as they wish regardless of what the likes of you or I want. I suggest that this relationship between wealth and power and who controls them is the greatest determining factor in our society. We don't even see it most of the time. It's "the way things are", like the Divine Right of Kings, it's how it ought to be. It's normalcy, but that does not mean it's best for all considered.

In this mythical room of 100 people. We would have to establish if there is a govt. Its type, and how much power it controls.

Right now we are tackling the issue from the ass end imo. We complain about money in politics. That only happens because of the power in politics. Take away the power of govt and the money goes with it. Nobody will spend money on politicians if they lack power to bid the buyers wishes.

 

[TheSlamma]

People are too lazy to vote with their wallets. They think they can ask for some law to come along and the gov takes the money from the rich and then drives around on a parade float spreading it.

Lets say the gov did tax the crap out of the rich, do you guys really think it would be used for anything that benefits us? They would use it to buy newer fleets of vehicles, fancier offices, bigger benefits and pay. Not a dime of that money would even be noticed by WE the people.

Stop being lazy and cheap, buy from companies that pay their workers better and don't send their jobs overseas. You will not only stop empowering the people you hate so much but you will help your fellow Americans out AND you will end up with a better product you don't have to replace the day after the 90 day warranty goes up. I buy quality products cause I hate having to buy replacements over and over again. I save more money in the long run. Impatient instant gratification gets you people nowhere.

 

[rudeguy]

That is what pacifies the people right now. That very thinking. The chances, even with extremely hard work and being smart, of moving far out of one's socioeconomic situation (like you suggested, going from lower class to "stinking rich") is nearly impossible. It looks possible and is the American dream, but that reality is about the same as trying to win the lottery.

Look how popular Shark Tank is, we now idolize billionaires. They are our celebrities and the entire point of the show is for them to bestow upon us plebs a chance to sit at their feet.

Anyone that thinks they can become a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs with hard work and smarts is in for a big disappointment.

I have no problem with income inequality. There should always be an inequality based on how much you put in, but our society shouldn't be at the extremes we are today. How do we fix it? It is hard in a global society where companies can move to different countries and only care about profit instead of their worker base. A good start would be continuing to take political power away from corporations and reduce lobbying.

Right. So many people twist their jealousy and envy into some distorted view of reality. The reality is that even if the government took all the money and distributed it equally to every. Say they gave every person $3,000,000 or whatever, within a few years we would go back to having poor people, rich people and people in between. Some people would spend their money on dumb things, some would invest it, some would just hold onto it. Then we would be right back where we are today: arguing over how the select few have the most money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In this mythical room of 100 people. We would have to establish if there is a govt. Its type, and how much power it controls.

Right now we are tackling the issue from the ass end imo. We complain about money in politics. That only happens because of the power in politics. Take away the power of govt and the money goes with it. Nobody will spend money on politicians if they lack power to bid the buyers wishes.

The two sides of the coin need to be scrubbed at the same time. Politicians and those who some want to be kings amount to the same thing. By weighting the quarter to it flips to one side or the other still means that it's two bits we get. By all means restrict power wherever it is abused, but regardless who the offender is.

 

[Smoblikat]

Heres a novel idea, if you clowns dont like the top 1% of the world having 50% of the "wealth"........stop using the money system.

Dont have money if you dont want other people to have more, just ignore the whole concept and your problems are solved. Wait, let me guess..........thats too hard?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Right. So many people twist their jealousy and envy into some distorted view of reality. The reality is that even if the government took all the money and distributed it equally to every. Say they gave every person $3,000,000 or whatever, within a few years we would go back to having poor people, rich people and people in between. Some people would spend their money on dumb things, some would invest it, some would just hold onto it. Then we would be right back where we are today: arguing over how the select few have the most money.

You keep going back to "the government taking everything". I'm not sure why you think that's a requirement. Yes the poor will always be among us, but why cause more to join them? Are you really so unworthy that you believe you deserve that fate? Don't think it can't happen.

 

[Subyman]

Right. So many people twist their jealousy and envy into some distorted view of reality. The reality is that even if the government took all the money and distributed it equally to every. Say they gave every person $3,000,000 or whatever, within a few years we would go back to having poor people, rich people and people in between. Some people would spend their money on dumb things, some would invest it, some would just hold onto it. Then we would be right back where we are today: arguing over how the select few have the most money.

No one said to take everything away and reset the playing field. Like I said, there will always be inequality and that is right and just depending on merit and work. No one is pushing for everyone to be the same. However, the delta between the extremes of poverty and ultra rich are what people are becoming aware of and is becoming a catalyst for revisiting our economic policies.

I believe it is a problem, but actually trying to come up with reasonable adjustments to our policies is a task for a team of phds, not dudes on a forum.

 

[maddogchen]

Heres a novel idea, if you clowns dont like the top 1% of the world having 50% of the "wealth"........stop using the money system.

Dont have money if you dont want other people to have more, just ignore the whole concept and your problems are solved. Wait, let me guess..........thats too hard?

I'll be glad to take all your money off your hands so that you can stop using the money system.

 

[rudeguy]

You keep going back to "the government taking everything". I'm not sure why you think that's a requirement. Yes the poor will always be among us, but why cause more to join them? Are you really so unworthy that you believe you deserve that fate? Don't think it can't happen.

Sorry I was using that as an example, not trying to imply that is what you or anyone else wanted. Just using the most extreme example to get my point across. If going nuclear like that wouldn't work, neither would a smaller version.

I'm not quite sure how anything I said could be turned into me being unworthy.

 

[TreVader]

So what happens when the 1% have 99% of the money, and the 99% have 1%?


World Wide Revolution?

 

[DrPizza]

The problem is the gap between the middle class & the 1%. It's unsustainable, and historically, has always caused huge problems at some point down the road.

Compuwiz, that's awesome that your kid did that without a college degree. My own son has done awesome since about 2 weeks after dropping/failing out of college. His last bonus is more than I make in a few months, and in my profession, my income will never be near what his is at 24 years. But you've got to realize, while there was a lot of drive for our sons, there was also a lot of luck involved - being at the right place at the right time. The number of higher paying jobs is a finite number, and that number is far less than the population. But, despite making more than us, our sons are solidly middle class, not 1%ers. So, it's not germane to this discussion.

To use Bill Gates as an example - hey everyone on these forums - you're not as rich as Bill Gates because you didn't work as hard as him and/or you're not as smart as him. Does that summarize your point correctly; if so, it's a foolish point - we can't all be Bill Gates. Right time, right place. The number of possible innovations that could lead to that kind of wealth over the next 100 years are numbered in the dozens or maybe hundreds - with billions of people in the world. We can't all be the lucky one.

Maybe it's too simple of an analogy, but compare the world to a game of monopoly. You're sitting down at the game, after the majority of the properties are already in the hands of very few players. Maybe you're lucky (which corresponds to work hard in the world) and you manage to by Connecticut Avenue. Maybe you're very lucky - corresponding to working hard and being in the right place at the right time -and you wind up with Indiana Avenue. And, maybe the exceptionally lucky person pulls off a Pennsylvania Avenue. But, since all the rest of the properties are in the hands of one or two other players, all of your income ($200 for passing Go) eventually winds up in their hands. Their wealth increases at a fantastic rate while all the other players are just lucky to get from day to day. And, when it's time for the next game of Monopoly, all their wealth is passed down and kept concentrated in just a few hands.


I'm not suggesting that the 1%ers need to be middle class. But economic policies need to prevent the percentage of wealth of the world from being more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

 

[maddogchen]

They earned or inherited it, but you think it should be yours?
I have a son who does not have a college degree, yet he is a bank VP. He makes triple my annual income, just as a base. I applaud that kind of success. Some of his peers are the same ones who think they should get $15 per hour to flip burgers, in fact some of his high school friends are still there. What's the difference? My son got no special breaks. So, to hell with this inequality bull shit. You make your own bed, period.

My own son has done awesome since about 2 weeks after dropping/failing out of college. His last bonus is more than I make in a few months, and in my profession, my income will never be near what his is at 24 years.

There's actually a third option which is to steal the money.

My son is going to beat your two son's up and steal all their monies!!!!!
I believe that should be a new car bumper sticker.

 

[jhbball]

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..

LOL, didn't you get your first full-time job at age 35, because you're a total fail fuck?

 

[TheSlamma]

So what happens when the 1% have 99% of the money, and the 99% have 1%?


World Wide Revolution?

not as long as the sheep have their credit to buy their gadgets, new cars, oversized houses and all the BS they fill it with.

It's pretty easy to quell the rabble these days. It's not like the gates of Hohenwerfen castle in the 16th century when the peasants sacked that place and torched it. Those guys had nothing, imagine if they were caught up with the Kardashians, those lords would never have had any problems.

 

[rudeguy]

LOL, didn't you get your first full-time job at age 35, because you're a total fail fuck?

what? No.

I got my first full time job at 16. Nice try though.

 

[Subyman]

I'm not suggesting that the 1%ers need to be middle class. But economic policies need to prevent the percentage of wealth of the world from being more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

Good post. That is exactly the point of people looking for reform.

 

[PokerGuy]

There is boundless evidence of wrongdoing.

By whom? And what exactly was the wrongdoing, what laws did they break? Or are just wild generalizations or allegations sufficient?

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.

As I said, it speaks volumes that you think wealth needs any apology or defending at all. I guess anyone who dares say that there's nothing wrong with having or accumulating wealth is now an "apologist".

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.

Whether it's ambiguous or not doesn't matter. Unless someone broke the law to gain wealth, how you define 'earn' doesn't matter. It's theirs, they came by it legally.

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.

Again, unless someone did something illegal, they did something to earn their wealth. It doesn't come falling out of the sky. Defining anyone who doesn't believe in simply taking things away from people as an "apologist" is stupid. There's nothing to apologize for, nor is there anything wrong with wealth so it needs no defense.

They never want to discuss what "earn" really means or how we distinguish between earned wealth and wealth gained through questionable means.

Because it does not matter. At all. How you or anyone else feels about how something was earned is completely irrelevant. If it's within the laws, it is legal, and it is theirs.

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

That would be cheating (ie, breaking the law). Unless wealth was accumulated as a result of illegal activity, what people feel about how it was earned is not relevant. They earned it legally, end of story.

Personally, I do believe extreme concentration of wealth is a bad thing for the country. However, I don't see any particularly good way of "fixing" that issue. You can see from the statistics that this trend has continued and accelerated regardless of which party has political power (congress, white house). That shows that neither party really wants to address the concentration of wealth, but rather redistribute the wealth to those they approve of.