Richest 1% to own more than rest of world, Oxfam says

[Enros]

Sergey Brin came from the Soviet Union as a refugee. His co-partner Larry Page comes from a family of academics. Zuckerberg's parents are a dentist and a psychiatrist. Bezos is son to a single teenager mother, adopted by his Cuban refugee and oil engineer step-father.

I am not saying that people don't have advantages. But you're being too harsh here. There's no doubting the ability of any of these billionaires, regardless of their backgrounds.

They all sound pretty middle class to me. Sergey's parents were both graduates of the best University in the USSR. Bezos had an engineer step father, most children of single parents simply don't get to go to Princeton. I see none of them are the children of that Welsh heroine addict couple with the 12 children who are always on Channel 4. How well do you think those 12 are going to do?

[PikeStance]

I wanted to see whether you said, I pay my ten employees 20% above market because I want to make sure I fulfill their needs - I doubted that was going to happen and I was right.

You do realize that was NOT me, right?

Until you've actually owned and run a business, you know JACK about doing those things. It's called experience, it's why just about every job and business values experience. It's all very well to be the high minded person in the crowd about what you'd do - it's another thing to actually do it.

Do you realize you always speak in absolutes.
The fact you need a learning curve (experience) doesn't mean we all do. Strange: My father has been running his business since 1978 (and was a manager for major company), by ex- wife ran her own business, my best friend also is running his business, and my sister is starting her own business. I have had many discussions with people who owned their own businesses and even offered my .02. I would never assume what I know as greater or lesser than someone with zero experience of any kind. Yet, you seem arrogantly proud that you can. If you cannot argue your point without discounting/ dismissing other people's opinions in such manner, then maybe you are not making a good argument. Your attitude is no different than the time someone told me I could not have an opinion about MLK because I wasn't around when he was alive.

[removeduser_487563287433]

They all sound pretty middle class to me. Sergey's parents were both graduates of the best University in the USSR. Bezos had an engineer step father, most children of single parents simply don't get to go to Princeton. I see none of them are the children of that Welsh heroine addict couple with the 12 children who are always on Channel 4. How well do you think those 12 are going to do?

Middle class isn't exactly the same as being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and immigrants aren't given the greatest start either - even if, as in these cases, they ultimately did very admirably. Why are you trying to discount the obvious ability of these individuals?

[Simon Cashmere]

If there is research showing that former McDonalds customers are not attending anymore because they are making a philosophical protest about what McDonalds workers are being paid, I might believe you. But I think this is just wishful thinking of yours which is not backed up by some or any facts.

What Jon Stewart's sock puppet says about inequality, who cares. There is always going to be inequality. Some people work hard. A lot of people don't. Once upon a time, people took responsibility for their choices. Now they don't - society is to blame. Everyone is entitled to more money. Whether they flunked out of school, never held down a job, took drugs, went to prison...they are victims of society.

Nearly every fast food place, restaurant, bar, in the US pays minimum wage plus tips where applicable. The entire fast food sector hasn't fallen over because of greater class consciousness and protests about wages. People just..don't..care.

[Braindead Colonel]

So you've never owned a business, and yet you pretend to know what a business needs or does not need to be successful. I was going to ask you, when you are paying someone - did you put those principles into practice.

Yeah, as I expected, trying to make it a personal confrontation.

Until you've actually owned and run a business, you know JACK about doing those things. It's called experience, it's why just about every job and business values experience.

If only business owners can judge business owners, then maybe only rapists should judge rapists.

Yes... and its the same one I was using. This doesn't change the fact you have spun the data - the number of children those two founders of Koch and Walmart had is giving a misleading conclusion. You can take the top twenty if you like, with Google, Facebook, Amazon and etc. coming into the mix, and self-made are in the majority even with your spinning.

So, according to your "logic", if at some point the top ten billionaires all descended from the Wallmart fortune, they would count as a single entry? Hahha, and you have the gall of accusing me of 'spinning' the list....

And you still haven't addressed the fact that most of the self-made clearly started off as at least upper middle class.

[Simon Cashmere]

If only business owners can judge business owners, then maybe only rapists should judge rapists.

You have no experience in running a business, none - not your own, or anyone else's. You can have an opinion about that matter - but it is meaningless and valueless without you having experience of running a business.

Get out there and pay your own workers above market, and go broke. It's all very well to pontificate to business owners what to pay workers and it should be more. You may not feel the same way when it is your money. You were lecturing about who should or should not be in business - when you've never been in business. That has no value.

[removeduser_487563287433]

If there is research showing that former McDonalds customers are not attending anymore because they are making a philosophical protest about what McDonalds workers are being paid, I might believe you.

There is, again I do work for these guys. There's a great video of the CMO of Australia talking about McDonald's various woes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5-NQ7bMRdU

What Jon Stewart's sock puppet says about inequality, who cares.

Well, the various millions globally who watched this video for starter's. And the brand managers who see stuff like this entering mainstream mockery. And I did predict you would dismiss this out of hand, but it's hardly out of line with the general reactions to McDonald's image right now. This is my favourite headline:

http://gawker.com/mcdonalds-just-doe...why-1651922762

There is always going to be inequality. Some people work hard. A lot of people don't.

Even you're not so hopelessly partisan as to believe that inequality is simply a matter of who works hard.

Once upon a time, people took responsibility for their choices. Now they don't - society is to blame. Everyone is entitled to more money. Whether they flunked out of school, never held down a job, took drugs, went to prison...they are victims of society..

Since you started this post calling me out on data, I am sure you'll be fascinated in the data showing the modern generation is better educated, better behaved and more financially responsible than its baby boomer predecessors:

http://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth/news...llennials.html



http://time.com/money/3532253/401ks-...ving-increase/

Nah just kidding I know you'll ignore it all.

So, according to your "logic", if at some point the top ten billionaires all descended from the Wallmart fortune, they would count as a single entry? Hahha, and you have the gall of accusing me of 'spinning' the list....

Their wealth comes from one single source - are you denying this fact?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that most of the self-made clearly started off as at least upper middle class.

I don't see why I have to. Being middle-class doesn't mean that you're destined to be a billionaire, nor does it change the fact these fortunes are self-made, and on top of that I pointed out the people on the list who come from backgrounds, including refugees and single teen mothers.

[Caelifer_1991]

Having looked through this topic I can't help feeling that this entire discussion is rather too narrow to be especially meaningful. Looking at merely the very top 10 is such a small percentage of the total population as to be almost meaningless, and regardless of their advantages or disadvantages, none would argue that they lacked merit as well - it is not as if one comes at the expense of the other after all. A far better way to look at this would be to look at total wealth and see what proportion of it has been inherited, and would be far more meaningful for 99.9% of the people anyone here will ever meet.

Since the topic does revolve around not even the 1% but indeed merely the top 10 individuals, I would say that it is clear that there is a clear drop off of anyone born below the upper middle class at that level of wealth. This fits rather well into history since you can go back centuries and find that it has been the upper middle class (or equivalents, Merchants, Captains, et al) that has fed new individuals into the upper class (again with equivalents, nobility, etc). In short, it seems to me that socio-economic mobility is as much a factor of "random" (by random that does not denote that it is entirely chance/ luck/ fate, merely that it appears as noise on a graph) deviations around the norm for any given lineage and that this is not fundamentally different to at any other time in history. Far better then to look at society at a whole than to observe such deviations at any particular level. Of course, the topic does specifically denote the top 1%, so if the discussion does not extend to wealth in aggregate, it should at least extend to the upper class generally.

[Simon Cashmere]

The rich and better off pay for just about everything when you get down to it. In 2010, the top 20% of income earners, paid 92.9% of all income tax revenue collected by the US Federal government and 68.8 of all Federal taxes. How much more are they supposed to be giving to pay their 'fair share'.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...geTaxRates.pdf

[James the Red]

You would think the wealthiest nation in the world would have an increasing standard of living, but no, it doesn't improve my sympathy for billionaires even if they are self made. Minimum wage should have kept up with inflation damnit, it should be like 18 dollars an hour by now from what I have heard. Though that could be wrong, anybody have a good source of what minimum wage would be if it kept up with inflation?

Had no idea you were Australian, don't care about what I said anymore now. And Jesus, if you're Australian you've got nothing to complain about. Highest salaries for unskilled labour in the world. Make a tiny bit of effort and become a sparky or a plumber and you'll earn a mint.

Wait, did you just call plumbing and electrician unskilled labor?

[justicar5]

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation on why I should care how rich some people are in an non-zero sum game economy, other than its "bad" by left leaning people.

If you are getting rich because you are stealing from people, I can say ok I agree thats bad, if you are getting rich because they are willingly paying you, I can't see where the issue lies.

Which relies on the fairy tale that it isn't zero-sum ofc.

The rich and better off pay for just about everything when you get down to it. In 2010, the top 20% of income earners, paid 92.9% of all income tax revenue collected by the US Federal government and 68.8 of all Federal taxes. How much more are they supposed to be giving to pay their 'fair share'.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...geTaxRates.pdf

when the board are paying the same % wise as the PA they harrass every day.


If they earn 1000 times what the average worker gets they obviously need 1000 times the calories, and since you have argued rectal feeding isn't torture, if they starve themselves by eating less than 2 million calories a day it should be administered that way.

on a less trolly note: limited liablity should entail limited compensation, if your a sole trader or small group risking everything, then fine huge pay days for huge risks. If you aren't risking your money a cap of a multiple of the average pay of shop floor staff sounds perfectly reasonable

[PikeStance]

You have no experience in running a business, none - not your own, or anyone else's. You can have an opinion about that matter - but it is meaningless and valueless without you having experience of running a business.

It makes me wonder why you are debating in the first place. However, you remind of a great scene in a great movie, Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't see why I have to. Being middle-class doesn't mean that you're destined to be a billionaire, nor does it change the fact these fortunes are self-made, and on top of that I pointed out the people on the list who come from backgrounds, including refugees and single teen mothers.

I am not sure why you two are arguing this point. The rags to riches stories do happen, but they are the exception not the rule. For most people social mobility is limited. There will always be people who break down this barrier as both of you pointed out clearly.

[Derpy Hooves]

This isn't a good example. The system was created to ensure that every team has a legitimate chance at winning a championship. To certain extent it has been successful. American football has had a number of different champions in the most recent history. However, there are criticism to the system. The quality of teams (of the Champions) are not at the same level as the teams prior to the salary cap. I can't think of a single team post salary cap that has the same quality and skill as any of the champions prior to implementing the cap.
Pre Cap
Green Bay Packers (Late 60s)
Pittsburgh Steelers (70s)
Dallas Cowboys (70s)
San Francisco 49ers (80s)
Dallas Cowboys (early 90s)

The last one was right at the time they implimented the salary cap.
Possible teams that come close were the St Louis Rams and possibly New England Patriots (but back in 2000, not now).
Generally, the overall play is not as good as it was then. League expansion also played a part (28- 32 teams).

The Moral of the story,... sports socialism does not improve quality, just dilutes it to mediocrity. But hey, would my Saints have won the Super Bowl in 09? Not sure, we were the third highest payroll prior to the cap.

​We still won the Superbowl the most

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

So you've never owned a business, and yet you pretend to know what a business needs or does not need to be successful. I was going to ask you, when you are paying someone - did you put those principles into practice, or is it just hot air about what other people who do have businesses should do. Maybe try owning a business and see how long you last with paying people to cater to 'employee need' instead of the market. Do you think your competitors care about employee needs? Most customers don't either, despite what Ferrets believes about McDonalds.

To be fair, though, there are companies that pay their employees above market rate. One of the first businessmen to introduce that practice in the USA was Ford himself and an entire economic theory has emerged (the "efficient wage" hypothesis) attempting to explain the merits of such an approach, such as increased productivity, loyalty and reducing turnover costs outweighing the greater cost of labour. I am not suggesting that this approach guarantees success or that this is the only way to succeed, but I know of several large and successful, export-oriented companies in Greece that do employ this strategy, such as Karelia. Google seems to share this philosophy as well.

We're not questioning whether these men are saints or not. Don has made a clear claim - most billionaires are not self-made. I am countering this.

I know and I don't dispute that, but I myself have been arguing that we should make a clear distinction between top-earners who have created their wealth (or inherited it) and those who leech if off of others through rent-seeking. Slim belongs to the latter, so naming him was a good opportunity for my to bring my point home.

[alhoon]

We're not talking about billionaires and how they were made, we're talking about the top 1% and inequality.
There's no question that the top 1% has too many billionaires if the 1% owns more than the rest 99%.
If the top 1% had 10% less fortune, it would be that 5% more of global wealth would be up for grabs. I'm not naïve enough to believe that this 5% would go to the bottom 20% or something, but if that 5% was trickled down, some of it would reach the poor eventually.

As far as it goes now, the rich amass wealth way faster than the poor, becoming richer.

Fact is... unskilled labour can be done by anybody. And pays accordingly. Or you could just go to Australia where they need the people but hate blacks.

Not anymore. They get Asians by the dozens to fill up vacancies. And why they hate Blacks? I think that stopped like 30 years ago.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Wait, did you just call plumbing and electrician unskilled labor?

No, not my intention. But I have a few friends who went to Aus to be labourers and drivers and what have you and trained up to be those, so more of an example how you can move forward.

Not anymore. They get Asians by the dozens to fill up vacancies. And why they hate Blacks? I think that stopped like 30 years ago.

I didn't mean it literally.

[Sire Brenshar]

We're not talking about billionaires and how they were made, we're talking about the top 1% and inequality.
There's no question that the top 1% has too many billionaires if the 1% owns more than the rest 99%.

Thats the thing though - the reality is that people with the most money will make even more of it, faster than the people below, and the whole time even legitimately and fairly. In my eyes that justifies the growing divide between the poor and the wealthy, and as keeps getting pointed out wealth isnt zero-sum (not yet anyways, but resource scarcity however is a thing) that is screwing everyone over.

I see you just said the same thing there, this thread is hard to follow I guess.

If the top 1% had 10% less fortune, it would be that 5% more of global wealth would be up for grabs. I'm not naïve enough to believe that this 5% would go to the bottom 20% or something, but if that 5% was trickled down, some of it would reach the poor eventually.

Quite frankly I dont think it would. The problem of the poor in most of the world has to do with the inherently unequal and oppressive economic systems they live in, and of lack of stability.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Just something of interest to the social mobility discussion point.

[Knight of Heaven]

You would think the wealthiest nation in the world would have an increasing standard of living, but no, it doesn't improve my sympathy for billionaires even if they are self made. Minimum wage should have kept up with inflation damnit, it should be like 18 dollars an hour by now from what I have heard. Though that could be wrong, anybody have a good source of what minimum wage would be if it kept up with inflation?

According to World Bank data, income inequality tends to be lower in Northern Europe, with countries such as Sweden, Norway and Finland showing some of the world's lowest GINI coefficients. It is also surprisingly low in much less affluent countries like Afghanistan and Ethiopia. The highest levels of income inequality were found, in the last decade, in countries such as the Central African Republic, Honduras, Angola, Haiti, South Africa and Namibia.
But it is as you say, the wealthiest nation in the world, it is not the most equal at all far from it.
As of standard of living, well depends on the states, but overall, yeah there are better countries out there to live in for sure.
The Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) maintains its own GINI index and related statistics for member countries. According to a 2011 OECD report, "over the two decades prior to the onset of the global economic crisis, real disposable household incomes increased by an average 1.7% a year in OECD countries. In a large majority of them, however, the household incomes of the richest 10% grew faster than those of the poorest 10%, so widening income inequality." In the late 2000s, Chile had the highest GINI coefficient, after taxes and transfers, among OECD member countries. The United States, Turkey and Mexico came right before it. At the other end of the scale, Slovenia, Denmark and Norway led the ranking with the lowest levels of income inequality.

Moral champions on this issue, like to pretend there isnt a problem with high income inequality, because ethicaly they think it suits them and the society, when you look at it philosophicaly, but they tend to ignore the effects higher inequality has in any given society, even if its a rich one. Besides compromising future economic growth, income inequality factors in alot of social phenomena in negative ways, compromosing even futher the stability of the society, and its living standards.

[Condottiere 40K]

Income inequality isn't an issue if everyone had a fairly decent lifestyle. But they don't.