Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 284 posts

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#41

Post by CalChris »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #10
notyourwork wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible for everyone’s wealth to increase? I think they might be assuming this is not possible and there if richest wealth increases by this much it had to come from the rest?

Yes it is possible for everyone's wealth to increase. In the year 1900 Global GDP was 1 Trillion. Today it is 77 Trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product In Layman's the Global Pie is growing. The number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen DRASTICALLY over the last 25 years. https://twitter.com/humanprogress/status/913901718823489538 So the people with the smallest piece of the pie are s…

> The number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen DRASTICALLY over the last 25 years.

This is defined as people living on less than a dollar a day. Yes, it has more than halved in 30 years. Congratulations. I totally see how this progress actually over half a century relates to the world's richest getting an extra trillion in one year. Yep, makes sense to me.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#43

Post by pg314 »

krona wrote: post #36
twoodfin wrote: post #2

This article provides paragraph after paragraph of supporting data that the richest have gotten richer, but none that I can see supporting its claim that “billions of poorer people across the world have seen their wealth standstill or decline”.

The richest have gotten richer To be exact, it seems to be saying that the richest 500 are x% richer at the end of the year, not that the 500 richest at the beginning of the year are %x richer at the end of it. These are two different things because they are two different sets of people. In decades past the richest and the poorest people don't remain in that part of the income distribution very long; this is especial…

> These are two different things because they are two different sets of people.

The sets mostly overlap. The top 10 of the richest people was the same in 2016 and 2017 [1]. These 10 people saw their net worth increase by $107 billion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires#201...

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#44

Post by charlesdm »

coliveira wrote: post #27
twoodfin wrote: post #2

This article provides paragraph after paragraph of supporting data that the richest have gotten richer, but none that I can see supporting its claim that “billions of poorer people across the world have seen their wealth standstill or decline”.

The issue is simple to understand: as population grows and technology grows even faster, there should be a steady stream of wealth increase. This has been observed as is obvious to everyone. However, if we allow the bulk of this wealth to be controlled by a tiny part of the population, we are creating a huge problem to current and to future generations. A hereditary oligarchy can be terrible to our civilization, and…

Maybe. I don't want this to come off bad, but maybe the work a lot of people do just isn't that important and thus doesn't warrant increases in salary? If a company needs someone to do X, and 5 viable candidates can be found for $Y -- there really is no reason to increase wages.

Anyone with some capital could've invested in Netflix, Facebook or Google several years ago and would have achieved a good return on their money.

Even if some sort of global wealth tax would be introduced (that's a big IF) to fix the accumulation of extreme wealth, would people be better off? The amounts collected, spread out over the entire population, would be relatively small. And most of this new wealth is mostly paper wealth -- the headline next year could very well be: "World's richest lost $3tn of their wealth".

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#45

Post by nofilter »

charlesdm wrote: post #44
coliveira wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is simple to understand: as population grows and technology grows even faster, there should be a steady stream of wealth increase. This has been observed as is obvious to everyone. However, if we allow the bulk of this wealth to be controlled by a tiny part of the population, we are creating a huge problem to current and to future generations. A hereditary oligarchy can be terrible to our civilization, and…

Maybe. I don't want this to come off bad, but maybe the work a lot of people do just isn't that important and thus doesn't warrant increases in salary? If a company needs someone to do X, and 5 viable candidates can be found for $Y -- there really is no reason to increase wages. Anyone with some capital could've invested in Netflix, Facebook or Google several years ago and would have achieved a good return on their m…

How well does that argument hold up tho'? I mean, there is always _someone_ who does it cheaper. Always. In fact I know of a web developer, who actually does quite decent work and is available for as little as $5 per hour. Does that mean everyone in that skill level should get paid so little?

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#46

Post by charlesdm »

nofilter wrote: post #45
charlesdm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. I don't want this to come off bad, but maybe the work a lot of people do just isn't that important and thus doesn't warrant increases in salary? If a company needs someone to do X, and 5 viable candidates can be found for $Y -- there really is no reason to increase wages. Anyone with some capital could've invested in Netflix, Facebook or Google several years ago and would have achieved a good return on their m…

How well does that argument hold up tho'? I mean, there is always _someone_ who does it cheaper. Always. In fact I know of a web developer, who actually does quite decent work and is available for as little as $5 per hour. Does that mean everyone in that skill level should get paid so little?

Cheaper yes, but perhaps not better. I'd be happy to demand a few million a year for high quality development work from an employer, but the laws of supply and demand do apply.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#48

Post by bko »

nofilter wrote: post #45
charlesdm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. I don't want this to come off bad, but maybe the work a lot of people do just isn't that important and thus doesn't warrant increases in salary? If a company needs someone to do X, and 5 viable candidates can be found for $Y -- there really is no reason to increase wages. Anyone with some capital could've invested in Netflix, Facebook or Google several years ago and would have achieved a good return on their m…

How well does that argument hold up tho'? I mean, there is always _someone_ who does it cheaper. Always. In fact I know of a web developer, who actually does quite decent work and is available for as little as $5 per hour. Does that mean everyone in that skill level should get paid so little?

How would you allocate work? Suppose you are paying a “fair” wage above the market wage, so you have 5 equally qualified candidates apply. They are not allowed to compete on price since you already decided to pay what you consider a fair wage.

How do you decide who gets the work?

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#49

Post by marcosdumay »

coliveira wrote: post #27
twoodfin wrote: post #2

This article provides paragraph after paragraph of supporting data that the richest have gotten richer, but none that I can see supporting its claim that “billions of poorer people across the world have seen their wealth standstill or decline”.

The issue is simple to understand: as population grows and technology grows even faster, there should be a steady stream of wealth increase. This has been observed as is obvious to everyone. However, if we allow the bulk of this wealth to be controlled by a tiny part of the population, we are creating a huge problem to current and to future generations. A hereditary oligarchy can be terrible to our civilization, and…

It's way simpler. As population grows, the 500 richest people (whoever they are) are expected to get richer even if the wealth distribution does not change. And as the society gets richer, they are expected to get richer too.

So, if there is any indication that wealth has been accumulating faster, it is not on the article. And as such, the article is valueless and a complete loss of time.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#50

Post by krona »

bitwize wrote: post #39
krona wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The richest have gotten richer To be exact, it seems to be saying that the richest 500 are x% richer at the end of the year, not that the 500 richest at the beginning of the year are %x richer at the end of it. These are two different things because they are two different sets of people. In decades past the richest and the poorest people don't remain in that part of the income distribution very long; this is especial…

Actually, it's especially false in the US, because social mobility is so poor for such a "free" state.

From 2001 to 2007 (just 6 years), the proportion of US households that left their income quintile were (starting at the lowest quintile) 44%, 61%, 58%, 55%, and 34%. Even by global standards that's quite high income mobility.
Post reply on HN