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

101–110 of 284 posts

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

#101

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

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”.

Indeed, according to World Bank, the number of people living in poverty is decreasing.

% from 1820 - 2015:

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/world-poverty/#/declining-...

Distribution 1988:

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/world-poverty/#/Global-Inc...

Distribution 2011:

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/world-poverty/#/Global-Inc...

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

#102

Post by dclowd9901 »

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”.

If you're burying your head in the sand, you're missing the headlies that wages have been stagnant for decades.

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

#103

Post by pmc1 »

staticassertion wrote: post #66
charlesdm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Trump get elected with 1/7th the budget of Hillary Clinton?

I don't think boiling any single political event down to money is going to be meaningful. I can't imagine anyone denying that lobbyists exist and that large amounts of money can buy you a lot of political power.

> large amounts of money can buy you a lot of political power.

That is not true. Hillary spent the most money in any American campaign (nearly $1 Billion) and still lost. Strategy matters more than money

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hi...

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

#104

Post by justicezyx »

aalleavitch wrote: post #89
coliveira wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who do not contribute to society are what we call parasites. Just because your father or grand-grand-father did something useful to the world doesn't justify that you have to live like a king. Modern society destroyed the old feudal order exactly to avoid this kind of social injustice.

You don't even need to get all this righteous anger involved; the rich benefit more from the stable functioning of society than the poor precisely because they are rich. If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. It's not only reasonable to expect them to invest more proportionally in the continued functioning of society: it's in their bes…

> If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt.

If history says anything, it's that humans only see this when the structure collapse, not when it's still working.

And to be harsh and potentially thought as rude: all you have been saying is a dream, a dream of impractical theorist.

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

#105

Post by dclowd9901 »

aalleavitch wrote: post #89
coliveira wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who do not contribute to society are what we call parasites. Just because your father or grand-grand-father did something useful to the world doesn't justify that you have to live like a king. Modern society destroyed the old feudal order exactly to avoid this kind of social injustice.

You don't even need to get all this righteous anger involved; the rich benefit more from the stable functioning of society than the poor precisely because they are rich. If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. It's not only reasonable to expect them to invest more proportionally in the continued functioning of society: it's in their bes…

They only invest in those things that prop them up. Like donating to police or lawmakers, or the very poor with next to nothing to lose (and thus the most dangerous).

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

#106

Post by justicezyx »

notyourwork wrote: post #90
coliveira wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who do not contribute to society are what we call parasites. Just because your father or grand-grand-father did something useful to the world doesn't justify that you have to live like a king. Modern society destroyed the old feudal order exactly to avoid this kind of social injustice.

I completely agree that the richest should contribute to society, especially as someone in the middle class. However, let's pretend I was born into the wealthiest class. If I inherit a business, that business provides jobs (ie. wages) for people, and is a functioning part of the economic system. Does that mean I am not contributing? Regardless of how rich I am, I still need to eat and live and put clothes on my back.…

It's not just contribution, it's about the ratio of what you take and what you contribute.

Ideally, one should contribute as much as she/he takes. Of course, that's impossible and impractical.

I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly.

That's the problem.

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

#107

Post by dclowd9901 »

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?

The reason anyone can make this kind of wage work is through consumer credit. Eliminate consumer credit, and wages will go up/prices will go down, I would bet my life on it.

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

#108

Post by notyourwork »

QAPereo wrote: post #98
notyourwork wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that the richest should contribute to society, especially as someone in the middle class. However, let's pretend I was born into the wealthiest class. If I inherit a business, that business provides jobs (ie. wages) for people, and is a functioning part of the economic system. Does that mean I am not contributing? Regardless of how rich I am, I still need to eat and live and put clothes on my back.…

If you offshore your profits and workers, avoid taxes, and the usual bag of tricks? Yes, parasite, and what happens to parasites which are too successful?

Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. So in a global economy I'm not sure your argument is technically justified and simply the righteous argument most people would accept as true.

If my US company shifts labor to India, do we assume it is bad simply because the US doesn't receive those wages to stimulate the US economy? Does this benefit India though?

I think your argument depends on perspective, from US point of view this situation is bad, from India's it isn't bad. From the wealthy person's doing this, it simply benefits him/her.

I don't know how to solve this and completely agree with the argument but it is technically flawed.

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

#109

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #23
mtgx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it did increase, most of that increase is just inflation anyway. And it's usually the wealthy that benefit from inflation (at least more than regular people do).

Compare the "regular" person of today to the "regular" person of 50 years ago. Is it easier or harder to afford basic foodstuffs? Do they eat out (luxury) more or less? If they own a home, is it larger or the same size? Who travels more? Who has better healthcare? Who spends more on entertainment? How much do they spend on the family pet? Who spent more time furthering their education? All of these are measures of we…

This is very shortsighted-claiming that all of these trends have to do with being richer, is simply absurd. Also, "regular" person? What age? Male? Female? What does that even mean? This is just utter nonsense. But I will humor you:

> Is it easier or harder to afford basic foodstuffs?

Processed foods are far easier to afford, but they are extremely unhealthy. As for other basics, many have gone up over the last 50 years.

> Do they eat out (luxury) more or less?

Women now work. 50 years ago they did not. Less time/people to cook at home. Not like everyone is eating at steakhouses. They just don't have the time so they go to Chipotle or McDonalds or Panera.

> If they own a home, is it larger or the same size?

Most people own legacy homes-they are the same size because they are the same homes. New builds are building bigger houses but what "regular" person builds new homes?

> Who has better healthcare?

This has more to do with advancements in medicine and technology than people becoming richer.

> Who spends more on entertainment? How much do they spend on the family pet? Who spent more time furthering their education?

Furthering education is largely on credit, so this is a bad measure.

> and the modern "regular" person would be wealthier in every one of these categories.

Nope.

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

#110

Post by staticassertion »

pmc1 wrote: post #103
staticassertion wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think boiling any single political event down to money is going to be meaningful. I can't imagine anyone denying that lobbyists exist and that large amounts of money can buy you a lot of political power.

> large amounts of money can buy you a lot of political power. That is not true. Hillary spent the most money in any American campaign (nearly $1 Billion) and still lost. Strategy matters more than money https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hi...

See the post you replied to for the same response.
Post reply on HN