Current Events > The 3 Richest Americans Have as Much Money as the Bottom 50%

(+) Yeah! (+)

And while billionaire wealth rose by 13% a year from 2006-2015, ordinary workers saw their incomes rise by an average of 2% a year.

http://time.com/money/5112233/oxfam-wealth-of-worlds-richest/
---

And?
---

trickle down works
---

The richest 1% of the global population received 82% of wealth created in 2017, while nothing went to the poorest half (3.7 billion) of humanity, according to a new study by the global charity Oxfam.

There is really no excuse for this to be happening.
---

BillWardsPants posted...

And?

---

we should send every poor person a pair of bootstraps, so that way they have no excuses.
---

If rich people have less money, does that somehow improve YOUR situation?
---

They earned it. Good for them. Just more motivation for me to acquire wealth.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

The richest 1% of the global population received 82% of wealth created in 2017, while nothing went to the poorest half (3.7 billion) of humanity, according to a new study by the global charity Oxfam.

There is really no excuse for this to be happening.

Seize the means of production!
---

LethalAffinity posted...

They earned it. Good for them. Just more motivation for me to acquire wealth.

LOL
---

Paper_Okami posted...

The richest 1% of the global population received 82% of wealth created in 2017, while nothing went to the poorest half (3.7 billion) of humanity, according to a new study by the global charity Oxfam.

There is really no excuse for this to be happening.

Well, what did the poorest half do to earn some of that wealth?

Not trying to defend the disparity, a genuine question.
---

Esrac posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

The richest 1% of the global population received 82% of wealth created in 2017, while nothing went to the poorest half (3.7 billion) of humanity, according to a new study by the global charity Oxfam.

There is really no excuse for this to be happening.

Well, what did the poorest half do to earn some of that wealth?

Not trying to defend the disparity, a genuine question.

the poorest half are often workers who work for those huge corporations that are making billions. What makes the wealthiest deserve what they have. Do the billionaires actually work thousands of times harder than the lowest level workers?
---

Then the poor need to step it up.
---

DanHarenChamp posted...

we should send every poor person a pair of bootstraps, so that way they have no excuses.

Give an idiot a bootstrap and it'll become a choking hazard. Give them a cellphone and watch them flourish.
---

Vicious_Dios posted...

Then the poor need to step it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/us/detroit-man-walks-21-miles-for-daily-commute/index.html
---

Paper_Okami posted...

Vicious_Dios posted...

Then the poor need to step it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/us/detroit-man-walks-21-miles-for-daily-commute/index.html

No excuses. They could've simply bought more money.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

Esrac posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

The richest 1% of the global population received 82% of wealth created in 2017, while nothing went to the poorest half (3.7 billion) of humanity, according to a new study by the global charity Oxfam.

There is really no excuse for this to be happening.

Well, what did the poorest half do to earn some of that wealth?

Not trying to defend the disparity, a genuine question.

the poorest half are often workers who work for those huge corporations that are making billions. What makes the wealthiest deserve what they have. Do the billionaires actually work thousands of times harder than the lowest level workers?

If they were paid for their labor, then they took more than nothing. Even if it was a very small percentage. I thought you were talking about something like subsistence farmers or slave laborers or something, but 3.7 billion seemed like a high number for that.

Who says the amount of money you earn should be based on the difficulty of your labor? I mean, a lot of hard labor doesn't pay especially well because almost anyone can do it, meaning it has low value because those hard workers are easily replaced.

"Deserve" isn't really the right way to look at this. No one necessarily deserves any income, it's not about what you deserve. It's about what you can earn through either labor and services, goods, or investment.

I suppose the wealthiest are the people who have founded, invested in, or otherwise built and own the means by which goods are produced and services provided. Particularly essential products and services like Google's search engine and smart phones, Microsoft's operating system, and Amazon's delivery system and online applications.

They were able to create or at least buy a portion of ownership in valuable goods and services that earn them money even when they aren't actively working.
---

Esrac posted...

I suppose the wealthiest are the people who have founded, invested in, or otherwise built and own the means by which goods are produced and services provided. Particularly essential products and services like Google's search engine and smart phones, Microsoft's operating system, and Amazon's delivery system and online applications.

They were able to create or at least buy a portion of ownership in valuable goods and services that earn them money even when they aren't actively working.

that doesn't mean they deserve so much more than the the workers who actually deliver their packages, or build the products. There is no excuse for people like Jeff Bezos to be worth 100 billion dollars when many of his works toil in horrible conditions for low pay.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/amazon-workers-reveal-brutal-conditions-in-pre-christmas-rush/
---

The thing about poor people in America is that they live like royalty compared to the lifestyle of the average Earthling.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

that doesn't mean they deserve so much more than the the workers who actually deliver their packages, or build the products.

Yes it does. You only "deserve" what other people are willing to pay you for your services.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

Esrac posted...

I suppose the wealthiest are the people who have founded, invested in, or otherwise built and own the means by which goods are produced and services provided. Particularly essential products and services like Google's search engine and smart phones, Microsoft's operating system, and Amazon's delivery system and online applications.

They were able to create or at least buy a portion of ownership in valuable goods and services that earn them money even when they aren't actively working.

that doesn't mean they deserve so much more than the the workers who actually deliver their packages, or build the products. There is no excuse for people like Jeff Bezos to be worth 100 billion dollars when many of his works toil in horrible conditions for low pay.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/amazon-workers-reveal-brutal-conditions-in-pre-christmas-rush/

So, what do you think he deserves compared to his employees? Considering he designed, founded, owns, and manages a business that provides such a valuable service to so many people; does that not earn him a significant income? I imagine he is entitled to a percentage of every sale on Amazon. Compared to his employees who just pack items, drive trucks, etc? I don't know how much of a salary they earn or what benefits they are afforded.

Sure, it's fair to criticize working conditions that are overly harsh, but the menial tasks they perform just aren't worth that much when nearly anyone can do them.
---

LethalAffinity posted...

They earned it. Good for them. Just more motivation for me to acquire wealth.

Good luck in your life getting even a mil lol
---

r4X0r posted...

If rich people have less money, does that somehow improve YOUR situation?

I think the implication is always that they will forcibly take the money away from the rich person and then give it to someone else. If we took all this gap money away and burned it instead, everyone would still be outraged and vocally upset because they did not get a piece of that pie first.
---

b o o t s t r a p s
---

Hard work, luck, then rigging the game. The system, ladies and gentlemen!
---

Wow, insanely lucky people
---

ManSpread posted...

trickle down works

as does removing regulations because "the free market will regulate"
---

Rika_Furude posted...

as does removing regulations because "the free market will regulate"

Only fools and sociopaths believe that everything will workout if you just leave the market unregulated. Memorizing market forces and always assuming the push/pull effects of them will always workout in the right direction is way beyond naive. The result is exploited workers unable to support themselves let alone families. Sweatshops with slave wages are not something to strive for. The result is a large chunk of the population locked out of the education needed to move up. The result is a huge portion of the population needlessly suffering and dying from mental and physical illnesses. The result is poor infant mortality rates. The result is people starving to death. The result is corrupt, for-profit policing and prisons. Yes, I know. Sigh. The result is pretty much all the markers of a third world nation a successful country is supposed to learn not to be.

Our economy absolutely needs to allow people to become multi billionaires. We need business, small and large to thrive. The Amazons and Wal-Marts provide services to countless people. But regulation is needed to make sure a portion of earned resources are used responsibly. People should not have the right to completely disregard how their actions affect others. Not taking an action is no less consequential than taking an action. Requiring certain behaviors is as just as banning certain behaviors. Money has to be put into a common pot to provide public education and healthcare. Living wages are a necessity for any nation to consider itself civilized. A progressive tax rate is needed to make sure public goods from police to healthcare get funded without anybody having to chip in more than they can afford. We basically need strong capitalist values to support needed socialist commodities. We have the economy but we are failing to take advantage of it.

byron posted...

r4X0r posted...

If rich people have less money, does that somehow improve YOUR situation?

Obviously. More tax money for the government to spend on Illegal immigrants and military personnel sex changes.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
---

It's disgusting seeing people defend this, like WTF is wrong with you?
---

And yet there are more new American millionaires than ever before.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

It's never been easier to become a millionaire.
---

Pull up bootstraps etc
---

@apocalyptic_4

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html
---

Some of the richest private individuals in the world have enough money to buy out the entire GDP of entire countries

Rexdragon125 posted...

Some of the richest private individuals in the world have enough money to buy out the entire GDP of entire countries

Actually, this is incorrect. These individuals don't have their entire net worth in cash. They cannot just buy out a country or even a years' worth of some country's GDP. Not without tanking the economy.

They might have billions in assets but it's not liquid at all.
---

where did all the shitposters go
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They might have billions in assets but it's not liquid at all.

equities are by definition liquid

the issue is more that they have inertia insofar as not being able to be liquidated all at once without impacting their own value
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

where did all the shitposters go

Look in a mirror
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They might have billions in assets but it's not liquid at all.

equities are by definition liquid

the issue is more that they have inertia insofar as not being able to be liquidated all at once without impacting their own value

well yeah that's what i meant when i said they'd tank the economy (and their own net worth) if they tried to move what they can move.

if jeff bezos tried to sell everything so he could acquire a personal army and his own country, the value of his money and the economy as a whole would collapse before he could do anything
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

well yeah that's what i meant when i said they'd tank the economy (and their own net worth) if they tried to move what they can move.

if jeff bezos tried to sell everything so he could acquire a personal army and his own country, the value of his money and the economy as a whole would collapse before he could do anything

more realistically he could use amazon stock to pay for the aquisition of a PMC

that is how corporate takeovers are done. stock would transfer to shareholders. haven't you ever held shares of a company that was bought out? when CVX bought out texaco in the 90s my texaco stock became chevron stock because it was bought with stock.

you don't have to convert stock to cash to use it to buy shit

even land can be bought that way if you buy a company that owns a ton of land

buying a country is another story though.
---

Bootstraps.

Now everybody will upvote my comment!
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

well yeah that's what i meant when i said they'd tank the economy (and their own net worth) if they tried to move what they can move.

if jeff bezos tried to sell everything so he could acquire a personal army and his own country, the value of his money and the economy as a whole would collapse before he could do anything

more realistically he could use amazon stock to pay for the aquisition of a PMC

that is how corporate takeovers are done. stock would transfer to shareholders.

you don't have to convert stock to cash to use it to buy shit

even land can be bought that way if you buy a company that owns a ton of land

buying a country is another story though.

nah that much amazon stock moving for such an acquisition would be noticed and flagged before it was allowed to happen lol

in other words, the idea that these wealthiest people could acquire countries/absolute power because of how much money they have is just naive
---

I can't imagine trying to pretend to be bothered by this. Idk how @Paper_Okami does it.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nah that much amazon stock moving for such an acquisition would be noticed and flagged before it was allowed to happen lol

there is nothing illegal about buying a PMC

and huge amounts of stock are used to buy companies all the time, it's literally the basis of corporate acquisitons and the reason companies do stock buybacks

FLUFFYGERM posted...

in other words, the idea that these wealthiest people could acquire countries/absolute power because of how much money they have is just naive

you're being naive. what would be flagged is illegal use of the asset, not the acquisition of it. if amazon got into the PMC business they'd just be doing what conglomerates do.
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nah that much amazon stock moving for such an acquisition would be noticed and flagged before it was allowed to happen lol

there is nothing illegal about buying a PMC

and huge amounts of stock are used to buy companies all the time, it's literally the basis of corporate acquisitons and the reason companies do stock buybacks

FLUFFYGERM posted...

in other words, the idea that these wealthiest people could acquire countries/absolute power because of how much money they have is just naive

you're being naive. what would be flagged is illegal use of the asset, not the acquisition of it. if amazon got into the PMC business they'd just be doing what conglomerates do.

if Jeff Bezos sold enough of his personal holdings to acquire a PMC and a shit ton of land or his own country, we'd know about it before it was official and it wouldn't go well. the Intel CEO sold a modest sum shortly after news of the chip exploits surfaced and he got a shit ton of flak just for that. if jeff bezos as much as sneezed in the wrong direction the right people would be on top of it.

none of these wealthy billionaires could make legitimate moves to implement Rexdragon's dystopia vision without collapsing their own net worth in the process of trying
---