Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016 • Hacker News Board

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#121

Post by superuser2 » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #94

superuser2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That house has value because it is connected to a road, power plant, sewer system, running water, etc. in a municipality that provides schools, EMS, firefighting, police, etc. Its future value is protected by zoning which ensures loud/ugly/polluting/busy buildings will not be located nearby. It is reasonable for the mortgage lender to make the loan because such contracts are enforceable in court, and it can count on…

"Very little about the real estate market is emergent. This is an excellent example of a market created by society." What is the difference between the market being "emergent" and being created by society? Isn't "created by society" just code for a process that's happened without any one person planning it, over a long time, adding more and more rules to make the world like it is? That's sounds pretty "emergent" to m…

In this context I'd argue emergent is the opposite of "designed as public policy" - more like "naturally happens." Though I suppose you could say public policy is itself emergent.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#122

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

jqm wrote: post #19

2.7 million puts one in the richest 1%? Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense. There are still a lot of very poor in the world. I started to think "injustice" when I saw the article, but 2.7 million will barely buy a nice house in some parts of the US. I suppose in some ways wealth is still relative. I guess I'm more curious about what percentage of world assets the .001% control.

[deleted]

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#123

Post by Paradigma11 » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

On the other hand every single person of the richest 90% owns at least as much as the whole poorest one-third does.

Heck, even i do. So i own as much as 2 400 000 000 people do in total. https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachm...

At least a court helped the poorest person on earth last year: "In March 2014, a French high court upheld Kerviel's prison sentence but ruled he would not have to repay €4.9bn" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel So there is still hope left.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#124

Post by brandonmenc » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 11:31 PM UTC

mahyarm wrote: post #26

brandonmenc wrote: post #23

> Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014. I know plenty of people in their 60s who simply busted their asses at middle-class jobs while saving their pennies who are members of this "global elite."

And all of the poor of the USA is relatively wealthy to the population of the rest of the world too. Still as far as 60 year olds go, that is actually pretty good. There are many 60 year olds who did not pinch pennies or did and had some medical disaster wipe their savings.

> And all of the poor of the USA is relatively wealthy to the population of the rest of the world too.

Yes, something I like pointing out to my friends who never worked in a factory complaining that there are no more good factory jobs.

Global poverty is declining in part because that work left America.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#125

Post by gozur88 » Tue, Jan 19, 2016, 1:10 AM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #85

gozur88 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures. Yep. You lift people out of poverty through growth, something capitalists are very good at.

Indeed witness the successes of Brazil! A country under the direction of US capitalism since 1964" with massive natural resources, no nearby enemies ... It's got very dire poverty and extreme wealth inequality. Vs the countries in Eastern Europe with none of those advantages. Most Brazilians would kill to live like an average person from there.

Capitalists like Lula? Uh huh.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#126

Post by soared » Tue, Jan 19, 2016, 1:50 AM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #14

bobby_9x wrote: post #12

What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much? How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only 1% of startups make more than any of the other st…

Inequality happens automatically if there is no control. I.e. someone will have way more than others, and not because they created value and are just capturing portions of it. Exceptional value generating individuals are not the norm, they are the exception. Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.

>Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.

That is an absurdly huge claim to make without a source.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#127

Post by soared » Tue, Jan 19, 2016, 2:06 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #48

brandonmenc wrote: post #23

> Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014. I know plenty of people in their 60s who simply busted their asses at middle-class jobs while saving their pennies who are members of this "global elite."

I don't think you do. The median income in the USA is $52,000. Assuming that a middle-class job pays 3* that amount, and that someone can reasonably save 30% of their salary for the last 20 years they work, that amounts to about $1m saved. Probably a lot less because a person's salary isn't at it's peak for much of their career. Even factoring for a household with 2 incomes at that level you don't get to $2.7m. I ima…

If they stashed in their mattress sure. But don't fucking argue about savings and claim they don't invest it at all.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#128

Post by soared » Tue, Jan 19, 2016, 2:08 AM UTC

sowbug wrote: post #58

onion2k wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you do. The median income in the USA is $52,000. Assuming that a middle-class job pays 3* that amount, and that someone can reasonably save 30% of their salary for the last 20 years they work, that amounts to about $1m saved. Probably a lot less because a person's salary isn't at it's peak for much of their career. Even factoring for a household with 2 incomes at that level you don't get to $2.7m. I ima…

A 7% return on savings will exceed $2m after 20 years.

Absurd that he would try and argue about live savings and claim someone does not invest.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#129

Post by fsloth » Tue, Jan 19, 2016, 7:09 AM UTC

soared wrote: post #126

fsloth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inequality happens automatically if there is no control. I.e. someone will have way more than others, and not because they created value and are just capturing portions of it. Exceptional value generating individuals are not the norm, they are the exception. Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.

>Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments. That is an absurdly huge claim to make without a source.

This was my interpretation of this graph:

http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-an...

This was recently in HN if I recall so I did not source it in my comment.

We can debate what is the value of owning derivatives but I think we can agree it's not anything like the direct value created by actors?

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#130

Post by rorykoehler » Tue, Jan 19, 2016, 7:56 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #112

rorykoehler wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much is still some. Edit: I got down-voted because I've got no money?

I didn't down vote (I can't; I don't have the points) but I imagine it is because what you said sounded like a knee jerk reaction or perhaps because you missed the word without in your quote. Or because people are assholes. It doesn't matter. Smile (:

Thanks for your kind reply. I don't really mind, I just find it curious how privileged people can be. Living hand to mouth is very humbling and I'm still easily within the top 50% in terms of global wealth, purely due to having been born in the right place.

I never set out to make money anyways (though I would like a little bit more than I have now), but I wouldn't feel comfortable participating in a system I would rather didn't exist (i.e. shorting markets, making money by moving money etc). If I was really interested in that I would have attempted it long ago, (in fact I was presented with ample opportunity to do so, by a dodgy potential investor, in a previous business venture) but I prefer to immerse myself in making things.

Reading posts such as PG's pro-inequality posts I have realised that I have something no rich person could ever have, and that is an insight into how the majority of people in the world think and act, and why this happens. For example I only need one reasonable pay day and my whole consciousness changes, everything I think about, do and occupy myself with, flips. Creativity suddenly explodes and productivity goes through the roof. I'm not sure people who have never experienced hand to mouth living realise how destructive inequality and poverty really are. It is holding back the true potential of the human race in uncountable ways.