How rich are you?

[braineclipse]

I have heard the BBC's More or Less go through a proper analysis of the $1 per day stat and the calculations were incredible.

I'd be very surprised if anything like that has been done here.

I really don't think disparity in wealth is a problem and I certainly don't like the fact that those who seem to care most about it seem to believe that the answer is to drag the top down rather than the bottom up.

I know our discussion started off more with western countries, but look at Russia as an example. If their financial system had been better designed and stopped "the top" - people like Abramovich - from gathering quite as many billions as they have and some of that had been spread around the middle and lower socioeconomic levels I think that would have been an overall societal gain. This pattern is seen in a lot of emerging economies.

It's somewhat different in the US for example, more established economy, more history. But the amassing of billions in the hands of the very few who also have a tremendous influence on policy through lobbying and corruption whilst millions live in poverty strikes me as less than ideal. Particularly when public education systems are relatively poor and education remains very expensive for a vast majority of people. It not only strikes me as needlessly unfair, but also very unfortunate at a societal level as there's bound to be a hell of a lot of untapped potential in those less wealthy because of education and financial shortages. It fosters crime instead of preventing it and this adds a tremendous, arguably needless, financial burden on societies in addition to causing tremendous human suffering.

 

[scaramanga]

I know our discussion started off more with western countries, but look at Russia as an example. If their financial system had been better designed and stopped "the top" - people like Abramovich - from gathering quite as many billions as they have and some of that had been spread around the middle and lower socioeconomic levels I think that would have been an overall societal gain. This pattern is seen in a lot of emerging economies.

It's somewhat different in the US for example, more established economy, more history. But the amassing of billions in the hands of the very few who also have a tremendous influence on policy through lobbying and corruption whilst millions live in poverty strikes me as less than ideal. Particularly when public education systems are relatively poor and education remains very expensive for a vast majority of people. It not only strikes me as needlessly unfair, but also very unfortunate at a societal level as there's bound to be a hell of a lot of untapped potential in those less wealthy because of education and financial shortages. It fosters crime instead of preventing it and this adds a tremendous, arguably needless, financial burden on societies in addition to causing tremendous human suffering.

That's a problem of the poor not having enough though - not a problem of the disparity or of the rich having too much.

Lets say you needed to increase the income of the poor 10x to make their lives comfortable - enough food, clothing, etc. to live reasonably well. If you do that but increase the income of the rich 100x people would still be complaining about the disparity despite there no longer being any poor.

 

[Robbo]

9,493,031st richest on income.

Wow. Among the top 0,16%, that's just ridiculous. Didn't see that one coming. Guess it shows how lucky I am to be born in the country I was at this time in history.

 

[Raziel]

Income equality on a global scale is always very difficult to accurately portray (cost of living, currency, etc.)

Income equality (and using the outliers) within borders is easier and much more disturbing, especially when looked at from not just a gross income perspective but the multiplier in income between skilled workers and CxO level staff.

Classic examples are Warren Buffet's admin paid more tax than Warren, and I paid more tax in the US last year than General Electric ... that's a problem ...

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's a problem of the poor not having enough though - not a problem of the disparity or of the rich having too much.

Lets say you needed to increase the income of the poor 10x to make their lives comfortable - enough food, clothing, etc. to live reasonably well. If you do that but increase the income of the rich 100x people would still be complaining about the disparity despite there no longer being any poor.

Will there ever be a time when everyone is elevated to be as rich as Abramovich? The answer says it all.

The recent financial crisis, bailing out of banks, and printing cash, has seen possibly the largest transfer of wealth from poor to rich...ever. Not only do a .0000001% elite have more money than they can ever possibly need and use, the gap between rich and poor is wider than it has every been. As you are interested in politics, it is worth noting that people in a society or community are happiest when there are no extremes of wealth.

 

[scaramanga]

Will there ever be a time when everyone is elevated to be as rich as Abramovich? The answer says it all.

The recent financial crisis, bailing out of banks, and printing cash, has seen possibly the largest transfer of wealth from poor to rich...ever. Not only do a .0000001% elite have more money than they can ever possibly need and use, the gap between rich and poor is wider than it has every been. As you are interested in politics, it is worth noting that people in a society or community are happiest when there are no extremes of wealth.

Why does everyone need to be as rich as Abramovic? If everyone's wealth is equal where's the incentive to improve one's lot?

And who are you to say how much a rich person needs? To some, you or I have more than we could ever need but I know for certain that I have nowhere near enough.

Happiness that can only be achieved if there are none far richer than you is a fairly empty happiness. Jealousy is the problem, not wealth.

 

[braineclipse]

That's a problem of the poor not having enough though - not a problem of the disparity or of the rich having too much.

Lets say you needed to increase the income of the poor 10x to make their lives comfortable - enough food, clothing, etc. to live reasonably well. If you do that but increase the income of the rich 100x people would still be complaining about the disparity despite there no longer being any poor.

Did you listen to the last freakonomics podcast? Some good stuff in there on the disappearing middle class jobs etc. Positive and negative views for the future presented, but the current trend is there and the potential negative impacts clear to see. A society moving towards a few more people in the very high income bracket and a lot more people in the very low income bracket doesn't seems like a good thing.

The economy isn't a zero sum game. It's not like you can't improve life for the poor without taking from the rich. But there's a limit to the resources available at any one time and how effectively those resources can be utilized. In a system where Wal-Mart had to pay their low level workers a bit more, and where the owners made a bit less of a profit you would distribute wealth a bit more equally and I think it would be a marked improvement for society overall. Currently, particularly in the US (and many non-Western countries) the rich and powerful are getting so powerful that they amount of money they can take out of the system is so great that it has a vast and great negative impact on the poorer classes.

I don't have a problem with disparity. It's the size of the disparity that I think is heading out of control. Some people would be complaining of any disparity, we would probably call them communists. I'm not a communist as I think you know. I don't think my points are invalidated by the fact that there are communists in the world.

 

[braineclipse]

Why does everyone need to be as rich as Abramovic? If everyone's wealth is equal where's the incentive to improve one's lot?

And who are you to say how much a rich person needs? To some, you or I have more than we could ever need but I know for certain that I have nowhere near enough.

Happiness that can only be achieved if there are none far richer than you is a fairly empty happiness. Jealousy is the problem, not wealth.

This point is perfectly reasonable if the person being jealous was a Norwegian middle class worker making a rather comfortable living in a comfortable job having a life more financially secure than the vast majority of people that every lived and this person was jealous of some captain of industry making a lot more.

I really don't think your point is valid if aimed at the actual poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

"In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty, including almost 20% of American children"

I don't think you can tell those people that jealousy is the problem. I particularly do not think you can tell those children that jealousy is the problem.

I imagine numbers are significantly worse in Russia. And it's not just jealousy that makes people think that a fairer distribution of some of Abramovich's money would be a good thing on a societal level. And, I would argue, on an economic and political level. We know all too well what poverty breeds.

 

[Ron The Shelf]

5,267,269th, slightly higher than my position on the season ticket waiting list.

 

[chicken_badge]

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Turns out I am 12,758,569thrichest person on earth by income.

Not bad could do better.

In all seriousness, I did actually just do this:


So either I am Chich or we earn exactly the same amount

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

In all seriousness, I did actually just do this:
View attachment 2272

So either I am Chich or we earn exactly the same amount

I barely work these days, the main part of my income comes from property and investment and another source I am not prepared to admit to on a public forum.

 

[chicken_badge]

I barely work these days, the main part of my income comes from property and investment and another source I am not prepared to admit to on a public forum.

Well if you won't I will

 

[SpurMeUp]

Why does everyone need to be as rich as Abramovic? If everyone's wealth is equal where's the incentive to improve one's lot?

And who are you to say how much a rich person needs? To some, you or I have more than we could ever need but I know for certain that I have nowhere near enough.

Happiness that can only be achieved if there are none far richer than you is a fairly empty happiness. Jealousy is the problem, not wealth.

Stating the obvious, it is impossible for everyone to be as rich as Abramovic. If we were super yachts and everything else would inflate in price. The original point is that Abramovic could spend everything he has - the John Terry's and Torres', the mega yachts, copious properties, women and parties etc - three times over and he would still be in a league of super wealth you and I can only dream of. We are not talking winning the lottery rich, to set you up for life, but winning the lottery every couple of months!

If we are relatively rich ourselves - compared to most of the worlds population - how do you morally justify so much useless wealth in the hands of the few? Like Brusters millions it would be harder to spend it all than not. This when people don't have food, can't educate themselves etc. How do you justify such a waste of resources?

I get your Free Market, Thatcherite like dogma, but personally think compassionate Conservatism had a lot more going for it. We've see in the banking crisis that free markets don't work left completely to themselves. Extremes of wealth is yet another area where liberal economics /politics is failing.

It is the 'human condition', we as humans are programmed to always want more. When I was younger, I would have taken what I have now. Now I'm here, of course I am looking for the next step, I need it - I don't really. I suspect you are the same when you say I have nowhere near enough. Nowhere near enough what? Cars, houses, mistresses, Conservative party donations? What would you do with it? The extra that you believe you need?

If you look at research into contentment or happiness, you'll find people live longer and are happier with a community around them and they are more content when there are not extremes of wealth. Western societies and governments need to alter our focus and mindset to money - it is resource to do things with, rather than a small minded male notion of it being fast cars, big houses, watches etc.

 

[Mr_B]