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

[Rebel_L]

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

Well I cant see a way to sort by self made score. They say that 69% are score 6-10 and by the looks of how the scores go score 6 and 7 started off with enough money to be called not having their skin the in game. A score of 8 would be debatable, they certainly would have still had a decent safety net infrastructure but also had much to loose.

Then if you actually want to discuss the issue on a global scale I would say pretty much anyone living in the US has a huge hand me down to start with. You pretty much have to try to starve to death if you want to die that way which sadly is not how a huge portion of the world works. I would strongly suspect that if it came to a global redistribution of wealth to even everyone out that everyone posting here gives something up rather than gains something.

 

[PokerGuy]

But economic policies need to prevent the percentage of wealth of the world from being more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

I don't disagree with that, but how can you do so in an equitable way?

I hate 'reality' TV, but I'll use this as an example: on the show Shark Tank, people come in with products and ideas. Some of them are really good. The billionaires on the panel invest a relatively small amount and end up with a good chunk of equity. If the product / idea hits it big, guess who ends up with a lot of the profits? The old adage "it takes money to make money" applies now more than ever.

There's also the issue of smarts. The reality is that in a world dominated by technology, the most intelligent will inherently do much better than those who are not very bright. Then, those who are intelligent seek out partners who are also smart and successful, and voila, now you have an even more successful couple, further distorting the stats.

 

[Attic]

This isn't about money. It's about power. I can point out some people who are obsessed with money, but what real wealth buys is control, and the human beast wants it precious.

This x infinity

Folks want the money for what it allows them to do, hold control over others (almost a perversion of freedom for the wielder)


I'm not saying if you like money you are this way, but this is where the large hoarding behavior that satiates and drives the huge wealth discrepencies come from.

It's about control and power over others, government could be the vessel to use this power in a moral and just manner. Problem is the government is very corrupt and crony.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

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?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Seems most defenders of the rich think that the goal of so called "wealth redistribution" is to simply take money right out of rich peoples bank accounts and give it to poor moochers so they can buy more cigarettes and abortions. We have vast amounts of wealth in this country tied up in the incomes and investments of a small minority while the middle class is in a decades long stall, and our nations infrastructure is crumbling. Investments need to be made to level the playing field in this country. I'm fairly certain the rich will still be able to comfortably afford their vacation homes if their taxes go up a bit. Their grand kids should maybe consider saving a bit of their own money for retirement though. Tough times, I know.

 

[glenn1]

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.

If it's that simple and a monkey can do it, then I guess that makes you even less smart than the monkey else you'd be doing the job. Or if your shit really is that valuable, go into business on your own and compete with your current employer.

My entire point was exactly that everyone can be replaced, except for those few creating the true value and making billions. Just because you don't have the ability to write the next Harry Potter does not mean you lack the opportunity. And it ain't J.K. Rowling's fault no one would pay you shit to read your fiction. Don't like that she's rich, then don't read her books. If everyone did the same we wouldn't have billionaires.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I don't disagree with that, but how can you do so in an equitable way?

We're not reinventing the wheel here. It's called a progressive income tax and inheritance taxes. I have no problem with tax brackets being well north of 50% for yearly incomes in the millions, particularly if it could give every capable student a chance of a college education, guaranteed healthcare for everyone, and a national infrastructure that isn't a national embarrassment.

 

[First]

They earned or inherited it, but you think it should be yours? It doesn't work like that. The Obama worshipers think money they didn't earn is money they are entitled to. It doesn't work like that. It never has and as long as we are America, it never will. Fucking whiners. Go out into the world and innovate. Bill Gates did it. I know plenty of people who are self made, who did not cry about people having more than them. They went out and found a way to EARN what they have. Quit crying and go do something. Advocate for yourself, educate yourself and apply what you learned to improve your status. This is the worst generation ever, as far as feeling they don't need to expend an effort to have some semblance of wealth. 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.

lulz, please shut the fuck up. You contradict yourself by being outraged over someone perhaps wanting inheritees of wealth to pay their fair share by immediately pleading with people to "Just innovate derrrrp!". Those who inherit do so through absolutely no merit whatsoever. Those who inherit make up about half the millionaires/billionaires. It's reality.

 

[PokerGuy]

We're not reinventing the wheel here. It's called a progressive income tax and inheritance taxes. I have no problem with tax brackets being well north of 50% for yearly incomes in the millions, particularly if it could give every capable student a chance of a college education, guaranteed healthcare for everyone, and a national infrastructure that isn't a national embarrassment.

lulz if you actually believe that would work. Ask France how well that went for them..... Not only does it not work, it's not equitable either.

 

[CitizenKain]

They earned or inherited it, but you think it should be yours?
It doesn't work like that. The Obama worshipers think money they didn't earn is money they are entitled to. It doesn't work like that. It never has and as long as we are America, it never will. Fucking whiners. Go out into the world and innovate. Bill Gates did it. I know plenty of people who are self made, who did not cry about people having more than them. They went out and found a way to EARN what they have. Quit crying and go do something. Advocate for yourself, educate yourself and apply what you learned to improve your status. This is the worst generation ever, as far as feeling they don't need to expend an effort to have some semblance of wealth. 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.

I'm sure the amount of semen he swallowed for that position is still talked about to this day.

Figured while you were making things up I'd join in.

If it's that simple and a monkey can do it, then I guess that makes you even less smart than the monkey else you'd be doing the job. Or if your shit really is that valuable, go into business on your own and compete with your current employer.

My entire point was exactly that everyone can be replaced, except for those few creating the true value and making billions. Just because you don't have the ability to write the next Harry Potter does not mean you lack the opportunity. And it ain't J.K. Rowling's fault no one would pay you shit to read your fiction. Don't like that she's rich, then don't read her books. If everyone did the same we wouldn't have billionaires.

Well let me quit buying gasoline and using banks, oh wait.

 

[First]

If it's that simple and a monkey can do it, then I guess that makes you even less smart than the monkey else you'd be doing the job. Or if your shit really is that valuable, go into business on your own and compete with your current employer.

My entire point was exactly that everyone can be replaced, except for those few creating the true value and making billions. Just because you don't have the ability to write the next Harry Potter does not mean you lack the opportunity. And it ain't J.K. Rowling's fault no one would pay you shit to read your fiction. Don't like that she's rich, then don't read her books. If everyone did the same we wouldn't have billionaires.

Yeah, but you're probably alone and childless if you think Opportunity! is all that stands in the way of greater riches for a large swath of people. When you have a spouse, child and certainly if you have a mental or physical disorder, you often sacrifice the Opportunities! others can pursue. In those specific, plentiful scenarios, success has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with circumstance. When you live in a bubble (single, overclocking, Xbox'er), everything in your world is about merit. Reality is far different.

 

[TreVader]

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?


Remember, this is the establishment vs people (in this hypothetical).

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If it's that simple and a monkey can do it, then I guess that makes you even less smart than the monkey else you'd be doing the job. Or if your shit really is that valuable, go into business on your own and compete with your current employer.

Actually, I'm the one making money for my company, not the moron providing "direction" as per my earlier example. He is overhead, whereas I'm not since I directly generate revenue. If we didn't have guys like that, they could pay me a greater share of the money *I* earn for the company. "Elevating" someone of my skillset to a job like that would be a waste of considerable talent. The best solution would be to get rid of the management who truly adds no value, but that's a different discussion. The issue is that many of you automatically assume that executives "earn" their money and "worked hard" to get where they are and are "irreplaceable." If I had a dime for every dimwitted, lazy executive I've met who got where he/she was due to connections, well, I'd be in the upper half of the 1%.

I honestly have no problems with executives making millions if their company is doing well. However, they need to share the wealth with the people who actually made it happen -- the workers. Executives should NEVER make millions for running a company into the ground and unfortunately that seems to happen too often.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, but you're probably alone and childless if you think Opportunity! is all that stands in the way of greater riches for a large swath of people. When you have a spouse, child and certainly if you have a mental or physical disorder, you often sacrifice the Opportunities! others can pursue. In those specific, plentiful scenarios, success has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with circumstance. When you live in a bubble (single, overclocking, Xbox'er), everything in your world is about merit. Reality is far different.

So then it's the crab pot for all, when someone else claws their way up you go ahead and pull them back in?

Again, why is your wife and kids J.K. Rowling's problem? You all bought her fucking books, she didn't put a gun to your head and force you to do so. Tell your kid your own made up stories instead of hers.

 

[berzerker60]

Some people are just so committed to the idea that the world is fair and rewards merit that they refuse to see cases where that's explicitly not true, and just pretend that the winners must be meritorious and losers must not have merit.

 

[glenn1]

Some people are just so committed to the idea that the world is fair and rewards merit that they refuse to see cases where that's explicitly not true, and just pretend that the winners must be meritorious and losers must not have merit.

And yet the losers keep buying the winners' stuff. Must be a conspiracy of the losers against the other losers to keep them down.

 

[glenn1]

Actually, I'm the one making money for my company, not the moron providing "direction" as per my earlier example. He is overhead, whereas I'm not since I directly generate revenue. If we didn't have guys like that, they could pay me a greater share of the money *I* earn for the company. "Elevating" someone of my skillset to a job like that would be a waste of considerable talent. The best solution would be to get rid of the management who truly adds no value, but that's a different discussion. The issue is that many of you automatically assume that executives "earn" their money and "worked hard" to get where they are and are "irreplaceable." If I had a dime for every dimwitted, lazy executive I've met who got where he/she was due to connections, well, I'd be in the upper half of the 1%.

I honestly have no problems with executives making millions if their company is doing well. However, they need to share the wealth with the people who actually made it happen -- the workers. Executives should NEVER make millions for running a company into the ground and unfortunately that seems to happen too often.

I'll ask again, why then don't you strike out on your own and compete against your current employer? From your account it should be an easy go for you, competing against moron overhead.

 

[PokerGuy]

Actually, I'm the one making money for my company, not the moron providing "direction" as per my earlier example. He is overhead, whereas I'm not since I directly generate revenue. If we didn't have guys like that, they could pay me a greater share of the money *I* earn for the company. "Elevating" someone of my skillset to a job like that would be a waste of considerable talent. The best solution would be to get rid of the management who truly adds no value, but that's a different discussion. The issue is that many of you automatically assume that executives "earn" their money and "worked hard" to get where they are and are "irreplaceable." If I had a dime for every dimwitted, lazy executive I've met who got where he/she was due to connections, well, I'd be in the upper half of the 1%.

Sounds like you should easily be able to start your own company then, not make those same wasteful overhead mistakes, and you'll be wealthy in no time.

I honestly have no problems with executives making millions if their company is doing well. However, they need to share the wealth with the people who actually made it happen -- the workers. Executives should NEVER make millions for running a company into the ground and unfortunately that seems to happen too often.

It's not your company, shouldn't the owners of the company get to decide who they want to pay, how much they want to pay, and how they want to reward performance (or lack of it)?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sounds like you should easily be able to start your own company then, not make those same wasteful overhead mistakes, and you'll be wealthy in no time.

If I were in my 20s, I would seriously consider it. As it is now, I'm in my 40s and don't care that much -- I make plenty. A friend wants to start a company and wants me to be a part of the leadership, but as I told her, I'm 44, not 24, and 100 hour weeks don't appeal to me now.

Also, who said it was easy to start a company? Me complaining about certain members of management being useless overhead is not equal to saying everyone should run out and form their own company.

It's not your company, shouldn't the owners of the company get to decide who they want to pay, how much they want to pay, and how they want to reward performance (or lack of it)?

They absolutely should, but that doesn't mean I can't point and laugh at all the stupidity and waste.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I'll ask again, why then don't you strike out on your own and compete against your current employer? From your account it should be an easy go for you, competing against moron overhead.

You're making some faulty assumptions:

1. That I'm complaining about my compensation -- I'm not. I'm very well compensated.
2. That companies are perfect meritocracies -- they're not.
3. You also apparently believe no inefficiencies or "moron overhead" exist in a company.

A guy taking a call or email stating that customer X needs a consultant and then turning around to me and saying "ICF, can you work with customer X" is not providing true value to the organization. It's like the scene in Office Space, where Bob and Bob are talking to the guy who allegedly takes specs from customers and then hands it off to the engineers so the real work gets done. I could also provide some specific examples of buffoonery from a project management perspective, but at least those guys are revenue generating in my company so I can't complain too much.

About "why I haven't formed my own company," I answered that to PokerGuy.

 

[Zaap]

A friend wants to start a company and wants me to be a part of the leadership, but as I told her, I'm 44, not 24, and 100 hour weeks don't appeal to me now.

Wait, wait. Leadership positon means a lot of work? I thought it was just kick your feet up on a desk and collect your 1% 'r check.

Truth is: if you did take your friend up on this and start a company and it became a big success, you'd eventually hire a bunch of people -that you know and hopefully trust, or just the best applicants that are the first to show up- as middle managers, and start delegating authority to them. They'd hire a bunch of people to do the work- kind of like yourself now.

Eventually, a bunch of those people would claim that you, and all the people that you hired as management "Don't know shit, couldn't do their jobs, do nothing but kick your feet up and collect 1%'r checks all day while they make all the money for the company."

One of them might eventually break away, put in the work, and go into competition with you.
If successful, SAME pattern would ensue.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[First]

So then it's the crab pot for all, when someone else claws their way up you go ahead and pull them back in?

Taxing the wealthy is not pulling anyone down. It's fiscally sound for state and local governments, easily affordable to upper income earners, makes almost no dent in economic growth and is a moral no-brainer to boot. Achievement is good. Just remember not to bury your overclocking head in the sand about how people "achieve" wealth through inheritance and superior opportunities that have nothing to do with merit.

Again, why is your wife and kids J.K. Rowling's problem? You all bought her fucking books, she didn't put a gun to your head and force you to do so. Tell your kid your own made up stories instead of hers.

Derp.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Wait, wait. Leadership positon means a lot of work? I thought it was just kick your feet up on a desk and collect your 1% 'r check.

Can you quote where I said this?

Also, founding a company is NOT equal to being management in a company. HUGE difference. I'm referring more to upper management, not the guys who form companies and work 120 hours per week to make it work.

Truth is: if you did take your friend up on this and start a company and it became a big success, you'd eventually hire a bunch of people -that you know and hopefully trust, or just the best applicants that are the first to show up- as middle managers, and start delegating authority to them. They'd hire a bunch of people to do the work- kind of like yourself now.

Eventually, a bunch of those people would claim that you, and all the people that you hired as management "Don't know shit, couldn't do their jobs, do nothing but kick your feet up and collect 1%'r checks all day while they make all the money for the company."

One of them might eventually break away, put in the work, and go into competition with you.
If successful, SAME pattern would ensue.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

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 there on merit alone. You also seem to be under the impression that anyone who complains about a manager is just "uninformed," doesn't know the whole story, or doesn't understand business. That is undoubtedly true in many cases but I assure you, it isn't true all the time and especially not in my case. I've been a manager. I've run global projects. I know the wheat from the chaff.

I have met some kickass managers (including C level execs) I'd do anything for, and I've also met managers who have completely lost touch and are coasting along, doing as little as possible.

 

[senseamp]

Republican plan for improving wealth distribution in America is for everyone to start their own company?

 

[First]

Can you quote where I said this?

Also, founding a company is NOT equal to being management in a company. HUGE difference. I'm referring more to upper management, not the guys who form companies and work 120 hours per week to make it work.

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. You also seem to be under the impression that anyone who complains about a manager is just "uninformed," doesn't know the whole story, or doesn't understand business. That is undoubtedly true in many cases but I assure you, it isn't true all the time and especially not in my case. I've been a manager. I've run global projects. I know the wheat from the chaff.

I have met some kickass managers (including C level execs) I'd do anything for, and I've also met managers who have completely lost touch and are coasting along, doing as little as possible.

^ This. I can't tell you how many C level turds I've met (almost always family-run businesses) that disappoint me with their complete lack of perspective about how the industry has changed and where it's headed. Just complete nitwits. The great ones I've met are almost exclusively self-made.