51–60 of 144 posts
Funny to see you people discussing petty caviar-allowance inequality so fervently within your own arbitrary Western borders yet never giving much mindshare to the rampant "developing" country exploitation that is the very source of your general prosperity. I'm a citizen of third-world country that is being sucked dry by the West for its resources and getting its people shackled to the ground by direct support for the…
In the United States, the richest 1 percent have seen their share of national income roughly double since 1980, to 20 percent in 2014 from 11 percent. Not true. The highest income 1% have seen their share of national income roughly double. But the highest income 1% is not the richest 1%.
In the United States, the richest 1 percent have seen their share of national income roughly double since 1980, to 20 percent in 2014 from 11 percent. Not true. The highest income 1% have seen their share of national income roughly double. But the highest income 1% is not the richest 1%.
For example, one might see an article complaining that some percentage of wealthy people didn't pay income tax last year. But an income tax is a tax on income, not wealth, and it's commonplace for wealthy people to have a bad year and lose money.
Is inequality a feature or a bug of capitalism? Seems like the general thinking is that its a feature in-so-much as it encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, etc. It seems like it becomes a bug when it reaches a level in which it creates a positive feedback loop of more inequality. As with anything, i've noticed the discussion is really about how much, not should it exist at all. Almost every debate in American pol…
"Workers at the 90th percentile of the income distribution for professionals make 3.5 times the earnings of the typical (median) worker in all occupations in the United States. Only Mexico and Israel, which have very high inequality, compensate professionals so disproportionately. In Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark, the ratio is about 2 to 1." It's hard to find comparable numbers, but aren't the med…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Forbes 400 has a self-made score rating the people on its list from 1 to 10, where higher means more self-made. https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-ne... https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/
Only numbers 8 through 10 are what any reasonable person might consider even remotely "self made" and lumping "middle-class background" and "upper-class background" into 8 (so that Mark Zuckerberg could be considered 8 instead of 7) is a stretch. Any credible list of "self-made this" or "successful entrepreneur that" should include a disclosure of parental wealth.
So that is the bearing for this scale they made to keep in mind - the 8 of 10 toward "self-made" are the type of people who were going to $50,000 a year high schools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'd be curious to know around what portion the 400 people are responsible for
"With a combined worth of $2.34 trillion, the Forbes 400 own more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people. The median American family has a net worth of $81,000. The Forbes 400 own more wealth than 36 million of these typical American families." http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding...
Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But even within the 1%, the income distribution is highly skewed, i.e. those 400 people are responsible for a very sizable total of the overall wealth within the 1%.
i'd be curious to know around what portion the 400 people are responsible for
Estimates put the total net worth of the world's richest 1% at 140 trillion.
The Forbes 400 has about 2.7t net worth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'd be curious to know around what portion the 400 people are responsible for
"With a combined worth of $2.34 trillion, the Forbes 400 own more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people. The median American family has a net worth of $81,000. The Forbes 400 own more wealth than 36 million of these typical American families." http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/