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

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

oxfam.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 136 posts

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

#51

Post by msellout »

ekianjo wrote: post #3

Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures. Plus their report contradicts the world bank observations: http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Glob... Which is not surprising since Oxfam has a clear political agenda. EDIT: world bank poverty report, clearly showing the decreasing poverty rates globally: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/G...

The World Bank also has a political agenda. Are you not worried about the accuracy of their reports, too?

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

#52

Post by reddytowns »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend (much of) their money, they hoard it.

Actually, straight up hoarding would be helpful to the economy, IMO. If the money isn't being used to build some ridiculous yacht or 40 bedroom house that no one is going to ever make full use of, then the people that actually would have done that work now are freed up to do stuff the benefits the rest of the community.

Why all the downvotes? HN'ers like yachts and empty mansions, huh?

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

#53

Post by onion2k »

refurb wrote: post #28
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend (much of) their money, they hoard it.

What do they do with it then? The only way they could hold money and it not have a positive impact is if it's sitting in cash. If they invest it or hell, even put it in a savings account, the money is having a positive impact on the economy. If they buy a ridiculous $50M yacht? That money flows to the company that built it.

That's true, but it'd be true if all that money were divided between 1000 people's bank accounts or if 50 people bought $1m yachts too. And that way there'd be more people enjoying the wealth rather than just one. Some people think that's better.

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

#54

Post by hkmurakami »

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…

I think GP does know some people like this, because the boomer generation experienced tremendous asset appreciation across all sectors (public equities and real estate in particular) during their earning years.

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

#56

Post by Qwertious »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #40

"The existence of a billionaire is a clear indicator of one or more market failures" I have been banging this around my head for a while since PG's infamous essay. There are plenty of reasons to see wildly successful people as talented, special etc. But nowhere near enough to believe them to be superhuman. Nor as rare as might be expected. Becoming a billionaire (or member of top 1% or what have you) is not something…

>There must be market distortions that fail to share out the vast wealth of the Russian oilfields? Similarly for not sharing the license fees of MSWord or the markup on Amazon books.

Network effects. Microsoft being a textbook example of a company built on them.

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

#57

Post by refurb »

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…

Net worth, that includes your home. And don't forget returns on investment.

Saving $30K/yr and getting a 5% return on your investment gets you very close to $2.5M after a 30 year career. Sure that's in the upper range of middle class, but it's by no means wealthy.

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

#58

Post by sowbug »

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…

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

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

#59

Post by anon1385 »

hkmurakami wrote: post #54
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…

I think GP does know some people like this, because the boomer generation experienced tremendous asset appreciation across all sectors (public equities and real estate in particular) during their earning years.

Sure, but being in the right time and place to benefit from a massive housing boom/bubble isn't "busting their asses".

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

#60

Post by jevgeni »

calibraxis wrote: post #39
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. Probably because most capitalists don't believe this? >nor did the property rights regarding their shares. Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business). >Taxing la…

That’s what legislatures do all day. (And economists are generally theologians masquerading as scientists.) For instance, capitalism requires enormous legislation and bureaucracy. Starting with a property regime (so I can "own" natural resources), police to beat those who disobey, throw people off their land so nearly everyone has to obey capitalists/managers all day, and so on. All backed by a bizarre morality. (And…

This is a cartoonish view of things. On top of that, most of history speaks of the contrary.
Post reply on HN