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

71–80 of 136 posts

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

#71

Post by rorykoehler »

gozur88 wrote: post #49
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...

>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.

The world is about to enter a deflationary period. Perhaps capitalists are not the geniuses you make them out to be and just got lucky. Correlation != causation etc etc

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

#72

Post by jevgeni »

djsumdog wrote: post #68
jevgeni wrote: post #64

Let me rephrase the title using absolute values: "Richest 73 Million People Will Own More Than All The Rest by 2016"

That's less than the population of Germany having more wealth than the other 7 billion. I've mentioned this before, but if you want to know why this is, read Debt: the First 5000 Years. It's life changing

Yeah. It's somewhere between France and Turkey.

But in my opinion the whole 99-vs-1 narrative is bonkers.

EDIT: Let me clarify to the downvoting PC frat boys: 99% vs 1% is a shit metric that doesn't address the issue of inequality. The only thing it enables is moronic populism.

Imagine if we take all the wealth of the 1% and distribute it uniformly among the rest of the 99%. Do you really think this will lead to an equal distribution of income?

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

#73

Post by rorykoehler »

rboyd wrote: post #18

Strange to see a Rothschild speak out against inequality. (FTA) Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild [...] said: “Oxfam’s report is just the latest evidence that inequality has reached shocking extremes, and continues to grow. It is time for the global leaders of modern capitalism, in addition to our politicians, to work to change the system to make it more inclusive, more equitable and more sustainable."

The smart ones can sense the pitchforks coming. The only way they can retain their position of wealth and power is to ensure the rest of us are well fed, housed, clothed and generally satisfied in life.

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

#74

Post by dnautics »

brandonmenc wrote: post #61
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 you're not understanding that the American middle class covers quite a wide range of wealth and income. You'd probably also be surprised at just how many millionaires who used to work in factories there are. 40 years of union wages, plus pension, plus investing in a mutual fund. I obviously can't prove it here, but I'm from a blue-collar factory city and trust me, some of those people have multi-million dolla…

Probably also because the prosperity of those blue collar workers came about by pumping the economy by borrowing from the future. Interest rates were 16%+ in the early 80s, you could have bought a middle class house and refi'd 2 times (at 8%,4%) and basically get two free houses. With interest rates zero or near zero, current middle class individuals will not be able to repeat this feat.

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

#75

Post by tim333 »

chiaro wrote: post #11

This sure seems to be HN's flavor of the month (and possibly for good reason). One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. LLC's and Delaware C-Corps didn't materialise out of the aether, nor did the property rights regarding their shares. I dislike the concept of "deserving" at the best of times, but under this light, those that are the most successful reap their rewards…

Markets are basically people buying and selling stuff. If some people sell their houses there hence exists a property market and so on. If I sell houses and sell you a share in my business then shares exist. If you and similar people offer your shares for sale then a stock market exists. So these things come about fairly organically if people buy and sell stuff. The LLCs and similar are embellishments to make things more efficient.

That said governments can change the rules and regulations.

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

#76

Post by onion2k »

brandonmenc wrote: post #62
anon1385 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> isn't "busting their asses" It is if that invested money came from say, pouring metal in a foundry 60 hours a week for 40 years.

If two people do the same amount of hard work, but one ends up a millionaire because they bought a house in the right area 40 years previously, then being a millionaire has nothing to do with their hard work. They are not rich because they "busted their ass" for 60 hours a week. They're rich because they were lucky to live in the right geographical area.

Hard work is replicable. Whether that's hard work pouring metal in a foundry, or writing code, or analysing the stock market and investing well, those can all be hard work. Hard work is not buying a lottery ticket, or a house in an area that gets gentrified decades later. Nor is it giving your wealth to someone else to invest on your behalf.

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

#77

Post by onion2k »

brandonmenc wrote: post #66
onion2k wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's by no means wealthy Are you honestly trying to suggest that someone with $2.5m to their name isn't wealthy? Wow.

They're certainly not poor, but if they've saved that stash just to blow it all on end-of-life care, they're not really wealthy in the perceived 1% sense.

Someone with $2.5m to spend on end of life care is a heck of a lot wealthier than someone with $250k to spend on end of life care. No matter what, if everything else is equal, someone with $2.5m is very wealthy.

Arguments like "Ah, but they're not really wealthy because..." will always fail because there'll always be the case of someone in the same situation who doesn't have $2.5m, at which point the person with $2.5m is definitely wealthy.

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

#78

Post by netcan »

srgseg wrote: post #69

I feel the serious point Oxfam are looking to make is let down by a definition of wealth that is very distorted. Their headline is based on a report by Credit Suisse [1] which defines net worth as: "the marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally housing and land) less debts." Consider two people who will earn exactly the same amount of money at every stage of their lives. But one is 1…

Any simple definition is distorted, inevitably.

Income, consumption or utility have a case. That said, wealth by this definition is most relevant in certain contexts. If you're worried about political consequences, for example. When the majority of property-wealth belongs to a small minority the majority have less reason to preserve property rights, for example.

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

#79

Post by sbardle »

rorykoehler wrote: post #71
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.

The world is about to enter a deflationary period. Perhaps capitalists are not the geniuses you make them out to be and just got lucky. Correlation != causation etc etc

Contrary to popular belief, there can be economic growth during periods of deflation, as demonstrated by the economist Gary Shilling. Paul Buchheit gave a presentation in London which understood capitalism as a technology. I think that is the right way to regard it. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years Western society has turned capitalism into an ideology, something to be worshipped and bowed down to.

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

#80

Post by tim333 »

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…

Depends on how you define fair but the usual solution is to tax Tom Cruise and let the money subsidise the government expenses (education, health etc) of the struggling actors. That's pretty much how it's worked in the developed world for the last century. You can vary the actual tax and spending according to your political preferences.
Post reply on HN