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

Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#151

Post by jwarden »

Assuming a self-similar 80/20 Pareto wealth model (a fractal Lorenz curve), the headline number generalizes as:

    Just x%   | % wealth held | × poorest half
    ---------+---------------+----------------
    20%      | 80%           | 4.00x
    4.0%     | 64%           | 3.20x
    0.80%    | 51%           | 2.56x
    0.16%    | 41%           | 2.05x
    0.032%   | 33%           | 1.64x

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#152

Post by hackeraccount »

ajuc wrote: post #34
simianwords wrote: post #26

Rich people having too much wealth is not necessarily that bad a thing because most of the investment is in productive companies. It’s not like they are using their wealth on frivolous consumption. Which means redistribution would only change who controls the investment and not the actual consumption patterns of people. Implication is that poor people will consume the same as before after redistribution with perhaps…

The problem is oligarchy not inefficiencies. In the absence of regulation, with these levels of inequality - democracy becomes a facade. Whatever the few oligarchs want - happens, no matter if people like it or not. And yes, redistribution is one solution, and it does work. You just have to repeat it regularly. There are also other solutions - like strong regulations on influencing public opinion/legislation with "lo…

"USA has neither regulation nor redistribution".

That isn't even wrong.

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#153

Post by senordevnyc »

dns_snek wrote: post #143
senordevnyc wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is evil, the vast majority of people don't become rich without exploiting other people, and just about everyone in that position then leverages their wealth to exert even more power over people and politics. Do you have any evidence to back this up? The cutoff for being in the richest 1% globally is about $1 million. What's the evil and exploitation you attribute to the average person with $1mm, who statistically…

Please start by reading the title that contextualizes my comment instead of posting a snotty response that takes things out of context — The number is 0.001%, not 1%.

Ah, so the richest 1% aren't "the rich", got it.

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#154

Post by simianwords »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #141
simianwords wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. Let’s take McKinsey and her woke charities. She sold Amazon shares and drove it into the charities. The charities are now consuming more. So there has to be equal decrease somewhere else right? People are consuming equally less somewhere else to allow for extra activity in charities. You might think this is a nitpick but this is my main argument. If you redistribute Bezos wealth to poor people, there has…

MacKenzie's charities mainly focus on job training, education, health, and you posit that'll cause an equivalent reduction in spending somewhere else? Is that really your train of thought?

Yes exactly

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#155

Post by keernan »

1. My first objection is the outsized ability of the wealthy to interfere with the lives of others. No known political system effectively eliminates the connection between wealth and political power/societal influence.

2. Secondly, there is a point beyond which concentrated wealth is immoral if there are large portions of humanity living without the necessities of life (as defined by society in the current era). While I struggle where the line of morality should be drawn, I say with extreme confidence the wealth of multi-billionaires is clearly far, far on the other side of that line.

3. Lastly, extreme wealth disparity is immoral in the absence of a system that ensures everyone contributes an equal personal burden (impact upon his/her life) in the cost of government/public societal benefits. That is not the case today in the United States (or anyplace else I know of).

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#156

Post by dns_snek »

senordevnyc wrote: post #153
dns_snek wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please start by reading the title that contextualizes my comment instead of posting a snotty response that takes things out of context — The number is 0.001%, not 1%.

Ah, so the richest 1% aren't "the rich", got it.

What do you get out of these childish straw man arguments? I made it perfectly clear which group I was talking about and you're asking me to defend an argument I didn't make.

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#157

Post by ProfessorLayton »

simianwords wrote: post #154
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacKenzie's charities mainly focus on job training, education, health, and you posit that'll cause an equivalent reduction in spending somewhere else? Is that really your train of thought?

Yes exactly

Oh okay, you might want to brush up on what it means to have an educated and healthy workforce.

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#158

Post by asdff »

simianwords wrote: post #26

Rich people having too much wealth is not necessarily that bad a thing because most of the investment is in productive companies. It’s not like they are using their wealth on frivolous consumption. Which means redistribution would only change who controls the investment and not the actual consumption patterns of people. Implication is that poor people will consume the same as before after redistribution with perhaps…

Frivolous consumption would be a better thing than dumping more money into “productive companies.” Apple becomes a trillion dollar company and did that uplift the world at all? Not really. People at the top got rich. What is there to show for it but ewaste. Slave labor. Lithium mining. Data center pollution. A race to what, I’m not sure. They will spend it on lockheed stock to diversify. Missiles with swords. Bombs. Dead people. Wars to justify more bomb production. Arms races that amounts to lighting money on fire because wwiii will never happen since everyone is so globally overleveraged. Diversify into oil. More pollution. Human rights abuses. The worst leaders in the modern age rich beyond wildest imagination free to slaughter journalists and have the world look the other way after a few months of wagging a finger.

At least when they blow their money on some iberico ham a farmer somewhere keeps his livelihood. An expensive cocktail and a 200 year old distillery keeps its doors open. $100 tip on valet directly into the local economy. Live in housekeeper providing for their children.

Productivity is a cult. Why are the most “productive” things the most dehumanizing? What are the true great works of this world? Most reasonable people would say trying to help the poor, cure disease, save the environment. All things private investment has deemed insufficiently productive over some machiavellian horror.

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#159

Post by JimmyBuckets »

Jensson wrote: post #132
JimmyBuckets wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your overall position but I disagree on the first point. Wealth is ownership, ownership is control of value. Allocating more (not all) value away from SaaS companies and into food security or education is a good thing and would make things better for everyone.

> Allocating more (not all) value away from SaaS companies and into food security or education is a good thing and would make things better for everyone. You are already doing that with your votes, the American government is already investing massive amounts into education and food security. Private investments would never do this, even poor people wouldn't invest in poor ROI endeavors, poor people invest in the same…

The American government gets that money from taxes. If wealthy people are using that wealth to avoid taxes and put the burden on to the worker then the worker is being hurt twice - first by the lost power in their vote, and second by paying an unfair share of public infrastructure costs.

Re: Just 0.001% hold 3 times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds

#160

Post by JimmyBuckets »

spwa4 wrote: post #142
JimmyBuckets wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree here if our political systems weren't vulnerable to capture by wealth. Inequality drives more inequality, it has to be counterbalanced by laws. The majority of human civilisation has been feudal. We recently got democracy for everyone. We are not yet out of reach of our local civilisational attractor.

But the reason that when talking about the 1% they suddenly stop looking globally and only look within countries is that everyone in the UK and US is top-1% worldwide. Equalizing would make the average wage $500, or 375 pounds. And when you start discussing what countries are the problem ... immediately you see there are very few poor democracies. There are some, but not much. To make matters worse, this year's Nobel…

To be included in the top 1% you need a net worth of over a million. So what you said is untrue. The correct figure is something like top 10%
Post reply on HN