• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,281
3,498
136
I keep seeing Bill Gates being used as if he was a pauper when he started out. He is the son of one of the largest law firms in Seattle. The family had compound on the Hood Canal before he started Microsoft. No rags to riches here.

I wonder where he got some start up money from..
 
Last edited:

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
I keep seeing Bill Gates being used as if he was a pauper when he started out. He is the son of one of the largest law firms in Seattle. They family had compound on the Hood Canal before he started Microsoft. No rags to riches here.

I wonder where he got some start up money from..
Well he would have been successful no matter what. Little doubt, though, that he wouldn't have been as wealthy without the wealthy family he was born into, something he has said on more than one occasion.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,175
423
126
That might be, but you guys seem to be under the illusion (and it is an illusion) that somehow, all managers are necessary, none are morons, and they get their on merit alone.
I certainly don't think all managment is necessary and that none are according to you, morons.

Point is simply, according to someone else, you could be a "moron" and not necessary in your friend's company. Would I buy it as a given, just because someone states it? No. If you had your own company, guranteed, someone would see you and people you hire as morons and unnecessary. But you'd probably hire who YOU trust, and put them in posistions you have some confidence in them being in. The main thing you'll expect of such people, is to hire people like yourself that do the work correctly and competently.

It's not a conspiracy of the 1% like the retard leftists always put forth- it's just the way the business world works. It's the way YOU'D make it work, all your thoughts of "No, no, I'd do it different..." is just wishful thinking. You'd hire people you trust- they'd have a lot of resentful people under them who think they should be in charge. Fact of life.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,281
3,498
136
Well he would have been successful no matter what. Little doubt, though, that he wouldn't have been as wealthy without the wealthy family he was born into, something he has said on more than one occasion.
I also have no problem with his deserved success. It just seems some people don 't understand (and more power to him) the he couuld be just another trust baby.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,495
554
126
I certainly don't think all managment is necessary and that none are according to you, morons.

Point is simply, according to someone else, you could be a "moron" and not necessary in your friend's company. Would I buy it as a given, just because someone states it? No. If you had your own company, guranteed, someone would see you and people you hire as morons and unnecessary. But you'd probably hire who YOU trust, and put them in posistions you have some confidence in them being in. The main thing you'll expect of such people, is to hire people like yourself that do the work correctly and competently.
I'd like to think that I have enough morals and realism to know that if I am coasting along, I'd better step up my game or those guys calling me a moron would be right. ;)

It's not a conspiracy of the 1% like the retard leftists always put forth- it's just the way the business world works. It's the way YOU'D make it work, all your thoughts of "No, no, I'd do it different..." is just wishful thinking. You'd hire people you trust- they'd have a lot of resentful people under them who think they should be in charge. Fact of life.
Oh, I agree. I don't think it is a conspiracy at all. I just think people are out of touch. I'll admit (and probably have admitted it before) that I am completely out of touch with most "average" workers and don't necessarily understand all their challenges.

I will give you an example of how I WOULD be different. Many years ago, I worked for a company and one of their big selling points was the annual profit-sharing plan. Well, the economy hit a bumpy road and no profit sharing was paid out for several years. Eventually, a new president came in and made a big production about how all executives would now be on the same profit sharing plan as the employees. Confused? Well, it turns out that the prior regime made up its own bonus plan and filled it with achievable metrics completely unrelated to profitability. Sorry, that doesn't float with me.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
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?

The problem is "earn" is an ambiguous word. It covers a whole spectrum of activities, from outright theft on one extreme to gaining the fruits of one's own labors in a free and open market at the other extreme. Most people have no trouble with wealth that is truly earned. The issue is wealth that comes from gaming the system or distorting the market. The wealthy's apologists ignore that issue, apparently presuming that mere possession of wealth is proof it was earned. That is an extremely naive view, at best.
I didn't know this thread was about the 1% thieves although I did see Bill Gates mentioned a few times.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
Greed, wrath and envy. The cornerstones of the progressive left and on display here in copious quantity. When the rich man has wealth, it's because he's greedy. When the leftist wants to take it away from him it of course has nothing at all to do with greed. Fucked up people thinking fucked up thoughts in their fucked up little minds.

Food, clothing and shelter are what is required to sustain life. Every prog in this thread has all that they need. But greed, wrath and envy rule their fucked up lives and somebody must do something so that their desires will be satisfied. Shout it from the rooftops. I quit listening a long, long time ago.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,660
4,483
126
Inequality is the theme for our generation. The 30 year trickle down experiment is dead.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Maybe you could make it a little more rhetorical.
Another evasion. There was nothing rhetorical about my questions. You simply cannot answer them honestly without undermining your ideology. Those questions are at the very heart of why wealth disparity continues to grow. What does "earn" mean when we do not have a level playing field or free markets? What does "earn" mean when we have deep pockets of wealth -- i.e., power -- who use their resources to further stack the deck to give them more wealth and power?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Another evasion. There was nothing rhetorical about my questions. You simply cannot answer them honestly without undermining your ideology. Those questions are at the very heart of why wealth disparity continues to grow. What does "earn" mean when we do not have a level playing field or free markets? What does "earn" mean when we have deep pockets of wealth -- i.e., power -- who use their resources to further stack the deck to give them more wealth and power?
The question I always ask - which usually gets ignored - is about the end effect of inequality. If I get an answer at all, it's usually a snarky answer such as "Boohoo, Richie Rich can't buy another gold plated yacht." But then on the flip side, what would the middle and lower classes have with a smaller wealth disparity that they don't have now? Would lower disparity result in less offshoring? Would the lower class suddenly become investors? Would they become entrepreneurs and start new companies? What do see as the end goal of reducing wealth disparity? More plastic stuff for everyone?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Another evasion. There was nothing rhetorical about my questions. You simply cannot answer them honestly without undermining your ideology. Those questions are at the very heart of why wealth disparity continues to grow. What does "earn" mean when we do not have a level playing field or free markets? What does "earn" mean when we have deep pockets of wealth -- i.e., power -- who use their resources to further stack the deck to give them more wealth and power?
Wealth disparity continues to grow because of poker players who cheat?
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,056
4,127
136
The question I always ask - which usually gets ignored - is about the end effect of inequality. If I get an answer at all, it's usually a snarky answer such as "Boohoo, Richie Rich can't buy another gold plated yacht." But then on the flip side, what would the middle and lower classes have with a smaller wealth disparity that they don't have now? Would lower disparity result in less offshoring? Would the lower class suddenly become investors? Would they become entrepreneurs and start new companies? What do see as the end goal of reducing wealth disparity? More plastic stuff for everyone?
Massive inequality leads to people at the top who view anyone who isn't there with them as moochers and looters. As takers. As people who are less than they are. People who don't deserve to be able to vote. As people who should only be able to vote based on how much they pay in Federal Income Taxes. It provides a pseudo-rational for writing laws that favor themselves, because they're such great jobCreators that if they get richer than they already are, everyone else will benefit, too! They'll have to, because they're Makers! They're the jobCreators. These are all words/phrases/ideas of the people at the top who view anyone else as rabble. As people who should just shut up, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and succeed how they themselves did, by inheriting lots of money and being born on third base.

Massive inequality leads to people underneath the people at the top to view them as out-of-touch. As self-appointed Masters of the Universe who consider themselves to be better human beings and Amuricans. It leads to distrust (ya think?) of the people with all of the money.

You can find all sorts of Devil Libruuls who want to murder the rich and take their money on the internet. Just like I can find all sorts of lunatic conservatives who will openly talk about taking away the votes/rights of poor people since they're just moochers and looters. Hell, you can watch a debate where someone who suffers a catostrophic injury is cheered on for death.

The point is that in this country, it used to be a given that if you worked hard and played by the rules and attempted to better yourself and provide for your family, that you could. Tax laws ensured that the rich could be rich and have lots of liquidity, as long as they re-distrubuted some of their wealth back to the people who worked for them:

Education/training programs. Health insurance. Raises that kept up with increased productivity. Time-off for sickness/vacation.

And you know what has happened? As we've lowered taxes, the rich now don't need to worry about re-investing as much of their profits for tax breaks. So Education/training, health insurance, raises keeping up with prodictivity, fringe benefits/time off, pensions, have continued to shrink and shrink and become non-existant.

When you give the richest people no incentive to help out the people below them through various programs/benefits, and decide that you're not going to pay them more even though they produce more, it leads to the type of inequality we have now.

There were plenty of obscenely rich people in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. But because there was an actual middle class who could expect their lives and their children's lives to improve because they were getting paid higher for better/more productive work, along with other benefits, they weren't so conscious of how much more their bosses were getting paid.

But for the past 30+ years, this has changed. The tax structure/tarrif structure has changed so that the rich don't need to care anymore. Now, if you have a higher education, it's through massive debt, and you're just happy to have a job. So you can't just walk away to get another job at a moment's notice for better pay or benefits. You can't just go and start a business and do something for yourself, because of student loan debt, mortgage debt, etc.

And recently, the rich have been pushing everyone else's noses in it. They've decided that they are going to use their money and lobbying power to push for laws that benefit themselves without benefiting the people who work to earn them their money.

This is why class, wealth, and inequality are coming to the forefront.

You can blame Amurica-hating libruuls and Democrat™ party operatives and the Kenyan Muslim Atheist Communist Fascist in the White House, but he's just a small artifact of the US sliding into corporate feudalism.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
The question I always ask - which usually gets ignored - is about the end effect of inequality. If I get an answer at all, it's usually a snarky answer such as "Boohoo, Richie Rich can't buy another gold plated yacht." But then on the flip side, what would the middle and lower classes have with a smaller wealth disparity that they don't have now? Would lower disparity result in less offshoring? Would the lower class suddenly become investors? Would they become entrepreneurs and start new companies? What do see as the end goal of reducing wealth disparity? More plastic stuff for everyone?
Lower disparity would indeed mean more money for lower income people to invest, thereby slowing the growth of new disparities. They might well become entrepreneurs more often, as we see in countries with stronger social safety nets and a resulting higher level of entrepreneurship, because they're not risking their literal food on their kids' plates if the business fails. More money to pay for kids' colleges, and health care, and food to prevent childhood malnourishment that stunts mental and physical growth (most people without stable food in this country are children, as are most people in poverty overall).

Basically, less income inequality would mean more opportunity for more people to make the most out of their lives through hard work.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
I have an interesting question for you guys:

If there was a war between the US government and the people over this, with the government siding with the wealthy and the rebels siding with the poor and middle/lower classes, which side would you be on?
Not a matter of if, a matter of when and when may be within our lifetimes.

Look at History, riddled with constant cycle of war between the Kings and Peasants.

The Peasants always win with the Kings blood turning rivers red.

Unfortunately the equality is short lived as new Kings rise to power.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Not a matter of if, a matter of when and when may be within our lifetimes.

Look at History, riddled with constant cycle of war between the Kings and Peasants.

The Peasants always win with the Kings blood turning rivers red.

Unfortunately the equality is short lived as new Kings rise to power.
I know it may be your wildest dream but if it were to happen it would make the great depression look like chump change.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
I keep seeing Bill Gates being used as if he was a pauper when he started out. He is the son of one of the largest law firms in Seattle. The family had compound on the Hood Canal before he started Microsoft. No rags to riches here.

I wonder where he got some start up money from..
None of that mattered really. IBM is what got him going and that happened because Gary Kildall (of CP/M fame) got his wires crossed resulting in a screwed up deal. If not for that it would be "Bill who?". It wasn't that Gates had a better idea or more talent, he got lucky and sold what was an inferior product. So much for merit.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
20,096
2,214
126
It's been shown in studies that increasing a persons net worth does increase their happiness to a point, and that point tends to be around 80-90,000 USD.
that amount is 80$-90$k PER YEAR, not NET WORTH!

i would be depressed if my net worth was only $80k.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,628
4
81
Not a matter of if, a matter of when and when may be within our lifetimes.

Look at History, riddled with constant cycle of war between the Kings and Peasants.

The Peasants always win with the Kings blood turning rivers red.

Unfortunately the equality is short lived as new Kings rise to power.
As an actual historian, yes that is true and it happened many times in the past, in fact I mention it in a post in this thread. Sorry it won't happen today, the rich have found a way to keep people poor and still entertained at the same time.

Sorry to squash your wet dream.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,374
7,164
146
Again I ask, what's the "left over" bit that the 99% are divvying up? Does Bill Gates eat 100x as much as an average person?
I'll take shot here.

Going back to fundamentals here, but wealth is money and money is an exchange medium for stored work. Work is required produce water, food, shelter, safety, education, comforts, etc and can be traded for them.

So while Gates doesn't eat 100X a normal person, $50B Gates dollars are equal to the work to provide 20 million people meals for a year.

Now it's incorrect to say that by keep $50B he's denying 20million people food obviously. Gates is bad example to, because his money isn't just sitting around, it's doing quite a bit of good.

It's also not correct to assume that the total pie is fixed $50B smaller. When allocated correctly work and technology can be used to grow the pie larger.

However inefficient allocation of work/money can effectively shrink the pie. War is a good example of that. Wealth hoarding is another. If the wealth is not invested in ways that grow the economy or like Goldman Sachs cornering of the aluminum market it effectively reduces the amount availabe for the rest of us.

I think that's what they were trying to get at.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
None of that mattered really. IBM is what got him going and that happened because Gary Kildall (of CP/M fame) got his wires crossed resulting in a screwed up deal. If not for that it would be "Bill who?". It wasn't that Gates had a better idea or more talent, he got lucky and sold what was an inferior product. So much for merit.
Yup.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY