If anyone was wondering, like I was, how such a small group can have such a big impact. 1% of 8.1 billion (current world population) is still around eighty-one million people. So basically the...
Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people captured nearly twice as much of the new global wealth created as did the other 99% of individuals put together, and in 2019 they emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity.
If anyone was wondering, like I was, how such a small group can have such a big impact. 1% of 8.1 billion (current world population) is still around eighty-one million people. So basically the population of Germany with the capital to do stuff like taking airplanes as if they are free public transport.
The article makes some very good points as far as I am concerned.
The thing about these sorts of analysis that is annoying is that the problem is rarely the 1% but the 0.001%. The global 1% is more or less those with wealth over 1M usd. That’s a lot of folks who...
The thing about these sorts of analysis that is annoying is that the problem is rarely the 1% but the 0.001%.
The global 1% is more or less those with wealth over 1M usd. That’s a lot of folks who just have homes and a 401K. It is not folks flying in private planes.
It’s the same if you look at taxes. Taxes on the 1% haven’t really changed much in decades. Even before Reagan. The 0.01% however? They are doing //great//!
I understand where you are coming from. At the same time, “just homes and a 401k” cannot be true given the US population of roughly 330 million people. Even if it were true, it only shows how...
I understand where you are coming from. At the same time, “just homes and a 401k” cannot be true given the US population of roughly 330 million people. Even if it were true, it only shows how uneven the divide is if only 1% of the people in the US own homes and have a pension build up.
However, I think it is more likely that you are looking at this from a US centric point of view, where here we are talking about global numbers.
However, even looking at it from a global perspective, the 1% still holds a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence. The 2022 World Inequality Report found that the global top 1% owns 38% of total household wealth, while the bottom 50% only holds 2%. So while not everyone in the 1% is flying private jets (I'd also like to note that I mentioned flying, not private jets), they still collectively control a massive share of resources.
As the article highlights, this concentration of wealth among the top 1% has serious consequences beyond just economic inequality. It discusses their disproportionate carbon emissions, political influence, and the resulting impacts on climate change and democratic processes.
And to be clear, the point isn't to vilify everyone above a certain wealth threshold. But, rather, to examine the systemic factors and outcomes stemming from this extreme wealth concentration.
Debating the exact cutoff percentages risks missing the forest for the trees. The article lays out a compelling case for why the current levels of inequality, and the outsized power it affords a small group, have far-reaching implications for key global challenges we face today.
We’re on the same page but more the world 1% have 38% of the wealth - that 1% is stratified further with the 0.1% having about 15-20% of the world wealth and the 0.01% is about half that. I’m more...
We’re on the same page but more the world 1% have 38% of the wealth - that 1% is stratified further with the 0.1% having about 15-20% of the world wealth and the 0.01% is about half that.
I’m more concerned with the 50-100k people with 5%-10% of global wealth. They have the power and influence to keep the distribution the way it is and to further consolidate their own.
It tracks, although even I'm surprised by the amount. Ultimately, if we're going to keep industrialization sustainable, we need to level the playing field worldwide such that everyone has...
It tracks, although even I'm surprised by the amount.
Ultimately, if we're going to keep industrialization sustainable, we need to level the playing field worldwide such that everyone has affordable basics, but luxury items are very much big purchases limited to a small number per year, regardless of profession.
We have to break the cycle of allowing perpetually increasing material wealth. And to break the assumption that different jobs intrinsically deserve higher pay. Management is not harder than doing, it's just different.
The primary adjustment to pay should be related to danger and socital need. Right now it's primarily 'whom is in charge of budgeting' and 'having education means you get paid more.' When those things do not neccessarily reflect the value you provide to society.
I really hate how we frame it like humanity is just producing this big pile of unclaimed wealth and it’s just up to each individual to capture some of it for themselves. When the reality is the...
I really hate how we frame it like humanity is just producing this big pile of unclaimed wealth and it’s just up to each individual to capture some of it for themselves. When the reality is the situation is a lot more closer to (but not exactly, so save your actually)
Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people retained nearly twice as much of the new global wealth that they paid out to the other 99% of individuals, and in 2019 they used their retained wealth to engage in activities which emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity.
I think I agree with where you're coming from, but I actually pretty strongly disagree with the way you've reframed it, because you've implicitly accepted trickle-down economics: the wealthy...
I think I agree with where you're coming from, but I actually pretty strongly disagree with the way you've reframed it, because you've implicitly accepted trickle-down economics: the wealthy produce wealth, which they then (out of sheer benevolent generosity, I guess) share out with the rest of society, "retaining" some portion of it for themselves. In fact, almost the opposite is true. Labor produces wealth; the wealthy exploit existing systems of power to claim a (wildly) disproportionate share of that wealth.
Maybe instead of "captured" or "retained", we could say "stole"? It's inflammatory, obviously, but seems more accurate than either other word.
I do not believe that what I said has anything to do with trickle-down economics, it just acknowledges the economic reality of who we currently assign the benefit of produce to. The workers...
I do not believe that what I said has anything to do with trickle-down economics, it just acknowledges the economic reality of who we currently assign the benefit of produce to. The workers produce it, and then it’s retained by the equity holders. The point is basically nobody’s capturing wealth. Pretty much all the wealth is already captured. And the people who captured it also get to decide how it’s distributed.
By the way, I actually thought to include in my original comment that the wealth was made by the other 99% as well. But I chose not to because I didn’t want someone to try and drive a wedge into what I’m saying, by pointing out that there are many examples of businesses in which the principal shareholders do play a very active role in creating the wealth, which is true. Don’t mistake me for saying that what they get out is proportional to what they put in though.
Here are some questions I'm not going to research, but maybe someone else wants to: How is "world’s most affluent 1% of people" measured? Is this by income or by wealth? How much income (or...
Here are some questions I'm not going to research, but maybe someone else wants to:
How is "world’s most affluent 1% of people" measured? Is this by income or by wealth?
How much income (or wealth)? What's the dividing line?
How many people in the US would be considered in the top 1% globally?
Well, $2.5 million wealth is top 2% in the USA. Top 1% is somewhere around $6 million. I'd say that puts maybe $5 million a good target for a hard wealth cap policy. Top 1% household income is...
Well, $2.5 million wealth is top 2% in the USA. Top 1% is somewhere around $6 million. I'd say that puts maybe $5 million a good target for a hard wealth cap policy.
Top 1% household income is roughly $600,000. Which makes $500,000 a reasonable maximum income.
Looking at it that way, it really highlights how multi-million dollar salaries are in the range of absurdity.
Looks like USA isn't even in the lead, with main land china bottoming out around $1 million to be in top 1%. Seems $3mil is a pretty close guess worldwide. Which is probably somewhere around...
Looks like USA isn't even in the lead, with main land china bottoming out around $1 million to be in top 1%. Seems $3mil is a pretty close guess worldwide.
Which is probably somewhere around America's 1.5%. More, but not exactly staggeringly more.
And most of that I'm betting is really just due to some seriously regressive tax structures in the USA.
It’s an interesting chart, but it can’t be used to find where the worldwide 1% line is. Here’s how it could be done: if you took all the people in the world and excluded the 79 million wealthiest,...
It’s an interesting chart, but it can’t be used to find where the worldwide 1% line is.
Here’s how it could be done: if you took all the people in the world and excluded the 79 million wealthiest, who would the richest? That’s the dividing line for the global 1%.
Looking at this, which I should have done earlier, looks like as of 2021 there were 62 million something millionaires, about 42% of them in the USA. So yea, looks like that threshold globally is...
Looking at this, which I should have done earlier, looks like as of 2021 there were 62 million something millionaires, about 42% of them in the USA.
So yea, looks like that threshold globally is in the ballpark of one million. Which makes sense, I could retire tomorrow if 1 million dropped into my lap, even in the USA.
Ok maybe not full retire. But I could quit my $100k job for a minimum wage job until social security hits in 15 years and be OK.
And that's wealth. I'm betting top 1% in terms of income may well be even worse... thats 'I fly to Disney every month' kind of money.
Yeah, that’s a good way to get a rough estimate. For income, it seems hard to say? I expect that such a ranking would have different people every year, due to people who make a lot of money from a...
Yeah, that’s a good way to get a rough estimate.
For income, it seems hard to say? I expect that such a ranking would have different people every year, due to people who make a lot of money from a one-time event. What would that be? Winning the lottery, inheritance, a company IPO, maybe some other business windfall?
By definition, you need to exclude the same number of people and see what the top income is, but it would be different people and a different distribution.
I don’t know who would fly to Disneyland every month. I do know a Disney fan who lives in Celebration and works for Disney, though.
I've met a few, though sometimes they just go to the American Girl Doll store for a weekend in Orlando instead. Not my people. They're making the most of the $8,000 they shelled out for annual passes.
I've met a few, though sometimes they just go to the American Girl Doll store for a weekend in Orlando instead. Not my people.
They're making the most of the $8,000 they shelled out for annual passes.
If anyone was wondering, like I was, how such a small group can have such a big impact. 1% of 8.1 billion (current world population) is still around eighty-one million people. So basically the population of Germany with the capital to do stuff like taking airplanes as if they are free public transport.
The article makes some very good points as far as I am concerned.
The thing about these sorts of analysis that is annoying is that the problem is rarely the 1% but the 0.001%.
The global 1% is more or less those with wealth over 1M usd. That’s a lot of folks who just have homes and a 401K. It is not folks flying in private planes.
It’s the same if you look at taxes. Taxes on the 1% haven’t really changed much in decades. Even before Reagan. The 0.01% however? They are doing //great//!
I understand where you are coming from. At the same time, “just homes and a 401k” cannot be true given the US population of roughly 330 million people. Even if it were true, it only shows how uneven the divide is if only 1% of the people in the US own homes and have a pension build up.
However, I think it is more likely that you are looking at this from a US centric point of view, where here we are talking about global numbers.
However, even looking at it from a global perspective, the 1% still holds a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence. The 2022 World Inequality Report found that the global top 1% owns 38% of total household wealth, while the bottom 50% only holds 2%. So while not everyone in the 1% is flying private jets (I'd also like to note that I mentioned flying, not private jets), they still collectively control a massive share of resources.
As the article highlights, this concentration of wealth among the top 1% has serious consequences beyond just economic inequality. It discusses their disproportionate carbon emissions, political influence, and the resulting impacts on climate change and democratic processes.
And to be clear, the point isn't to vilify everyone above a certain wealth threshold. But, rather, to examine the systemic factors and outcomes stemming from this extreme wealth concentration.
Debating the exact cutoff percentages risks missing the forest for the trees. The article lays out a compelling case for why the current levels of inequality, and the outsized power it affords a small group, have far-reaching implications for key global challenges we face today.
We’re on the same page but more the world 1% have 38% of the wealth - that 1% is stratified further with the 0.1% having about 15-20% of the world wealth and the 0.01% is about half that.
I’m more concerned with the 50-100k people with 5%-10% of global wealth. They have the power and influence to keep the distribution the way it is and to further consolidate their own.
They’re also a smaller minority. So if you can get your democracy working correctly you will find fewer people defending them at the polls.
It tracks, although even I'm surprised by the amount.
Ultimately, if we're going to keep industrialization sustainable, we need to level the playing field worldwide such that everyone has affordable basics, but luxury items are very much big purchases limited to a small number per year, regardless of profession.
We have to break the cycle of allowing perpetually increasing material wealth. And to break the assumption that different jobs intrinsically deserve higher pay. Management is not harder than doing, it's just different.
The primary adjustment to pay should be related to danger and socital need. Right now it's primarily 'whom is in charge of budgeting' and 'having education means you get paid more.' When those things do not neccessarily reflect the value you provide to society.
I really hate how we frame it like humanity is just producing this big pile of unclaimed wealth and it’s just up to each individual to capture some of it for themselves. When the reality is the situation is a lot more closer to (but not exactly, so save your actually)
I think I agree with where you're coming from, but I actually pretty strongly disagree with the way you've reframed it, because you've implicitly accepted trickle-down economics: the wealthy produce wealth, which they then (out of sheer benevolent generosity, I guess) share out with the rest of society, "retaining" some portion of it for themselves. In fact, almost the opposite is true. Labor produces wealth; the wealthy exploit existing systems of power to claim a (wildly) disproportionate share of that wealth.
Maybe instead of "captured" or "retained", we could say "stole"? It's inflammatory, obviously, but seems more accurate than either other word.
I do not believe that what I said has anything to do with trickle-down economics, it just acknowledges the economic reality of who we currently assign the benefit of produce to. The workers produce it, and then it’s retained by the equity holders. The point is basically nobody’s capturing wealth. Pretty much all the wealth is already captured. And the people who captured it also get to decide how it’s distributed.
By the way, I actually thought to include in my original comment that the wealth was made by the other 99% as well. But I chose not to because I didn’t want someone to try and drive a wedge into what I’m saying, by pointing out that there are many examples of businesses in which the principal shareholders do play a very active role in creating the wealth, which is true. Don’t mistake me for saying that what they get out is proportional to what they put in though.
Here are some questions I'm not going to research, but maybe someone else wants to:
It doesn't directly answer the question, but possibly of interest:
The history of global economic inequality (Our World In Data)
Well, $2.5 million wealth is top 2% in the USA. Top 1% is somewhere around $6 million. I'd say that puts maybe $5 million a good target for a hard wealth cap policy.
Top 1% household income is roughly $600,000. Which makes $500,000 a reasonable maximum income.
Looking at it that way, it really highlights how multi-million dollar salaries are in the range of absurdity.
That wasn't the question, though. The 1% line in the US will be a lot higher than the global 1% line.
Looks like USA isn't even in the lead, with main land china bottoming out around $1 million to be in top 1%. Seems $3mil is a pretty close guess worldwide.
Which is probably somewhere around America's 1.5%. More, but not exactly staggeringly more.
And most of that I'm betting is really just due to some seriously regressive tax structures in the USA.
It’s an interesting chart, but it can’t be used to find where the worldwide 1% line is.
Here’s how it could be done: if you took all the people in the world and excluded the 79 million wealthiest, who would the richest? That’s the dividing line for the global 1%.
Looking at this, which I should have done earlier, looks like as of 2021 there were 62 million something millionaires, about 42% of them in the USA.
So yea, looks like that threshold globally is in the ballpark of one million. Which makes sense, I could retire tomorrow if 1 million dropped into my lap, even in the USA.
Ok maybe not full retire. But I could quit my $100k job for a minimum wage job until social security hits in 15 years and be OK.
And that's wealth. I'm betting top 1% in terms of income may well be even worse... thats 'I fly to Disney every month' kind of money.
Yeah, that’s a good way to get a rough estimate.
For income, it seems hard to say? I expect that such a ranking would have different people every year, due to people who make a lot of money from a one-time event. What would that be? Winning the lottery, inheritance, a company IPO, maybe some other business windfall?
By definition, you need to exclude the same number of people and see what the top income is, but it would be different people and a different distribution.
I don’t know who would fly to Disneyland every month. I do know a Disney fan who lives in Celebration and works for Disney, though.
I've met a few, though sometimes they just go to the American Girl Doll store for a weekend in Orlando instead. Not my people.
They're making the most of the $8,000 they shelled out for annual passes.