The reality of wealth distribution - a visual representation

BrianFlanders

They couldn't possibly believe that people won't protest if they can actually see and understand what's happening. So why would they do that? Shouldn't they be sneaky instead? Wouldn't it be worth being just a little less rich if it was going to keep them at the top much longer?

not all the people in 1% are the same.
trust me, they are sneaky as much as they can be.

actually if you consider that they are fooling and keeping under control 99% they are doing excellent job.

it cannot go on forever but I'm sure they are getting ready for bad times as well.

reply to post by JHumm


The most recent was the French revolution where they killed the one percent
The most effective was the peasants revolt where they burned the debt, deeds and bondage records.
Perhaps the next one will be a combination of the two destroy records and cull the psychopaths in society - they 'can' test for that most executives, politicitians and the one percent would fail that test btw.

demus

BrianFlanders

They couldn't possibly believe that people won't protest if they can actually see and understand what's happening. So why would they do that? Shouldn't they be sneaky instead? Wouldn't it be worth being just a little less rich if it was going to keep them at the top much longer?

not all the people in 1% are the same.
trust me, they are sneaky as much as they can be.

actually if you consider that they are fooling and keeping under control 99% they are doing excellent job.

Really? Considering the fact that just about everyone seems to know about it, they don't even seem to be fooling 30%. The biggest part of control would be controlling the information.

BrianFlanders

So what are these people really trying to do here? Are they stupid? No. If they were, they wouldn't be the richest and most powerful people alive. So if they aren't stupid, they know precisely what they're doing and what people will think when they do it. Right?

Well, maybe. I will accept the possibility of some sort of targeted manipulation of the masses in the growing prevalence of the wealthy flipping the proverbial bird in the direction of The Great Unwashed.

However, there is actually little correlation between intelligence and success. Also, ego driven belligerence for the sake of it is inevitable in at least some of those who are so wealthy that they see themselves as little gods on earth compared to the rest of us. When you are surrounded by enough comparative material excess, yes men and social power the delusions of grandeur can be epic.

Long story short, while some of them will be inevitably quite intelligent, in general the wealthy elite really aren't physically, morally or certainly intellectually superior to you, me or the population at large. The potential to manipulate society comes from the power inherent in the wealth itself, not because they have earned that wealth by manifesting some superior trait.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

IkNOwSTuff
I have come to realise over the past few weeks how hypocritical it is of all of us to talk about wealth distribution.
If you are lucky enough to be reading this you are 1 of the planets elite.

All of us here have access to clean water and food, a few possesions (at least a computer Ill assume) maybe a car etc etc.
If the 1% should be forced to give up what they have to be on par with us plebs then maybe us plebs should give up most of what we have to the truly downtrodden in places like Sth America, Afica and SE Asia?

Next time the excesses of the 1% make you sick remember that probably 30-40% of the planet thinks YOU are rich, excessive and Elite!!!!

What are you prepared to sacrifice when this wealth redistribution happens?

Where do you get the idea that any one of us must make a 'sacrifice?' Such a notion is completely missing the point, which is that the correlation between the distribution of capital and invested labor should actually, and consistently, produce a solid, sensible, and reliable equation that is 'fair' across the board. There is nothing hypocritical about probing for answers and demanding reparation when a victimized party is being exploited. Your reasoning suggests that a person shouldn't gripe about the pain of losing their hand, when they could have easily lost an arm.

redhorse

Long story short, while some of them will be inevitably quite intelligent, in general the wealthy elite really aren't physically, morally or certainly intellectually superior to you, me or the population at large. The potential to manipulate society comes from the power inherent in the wealth itself, not because they have earned that wealth by manifesting some superior trait.

No. I'm not buying that. We've seen what happens when a complete moron wins the lottery enough times to know the money doesn't do anything on it's own if the person who owns it is too stupid to use it intelligently.

A few related topics came up here on ATS before, which at first, don't quite seem related, but I will explain:

Would kicking all illegal immagrants out = economic boom?

I have been making the argument, for a very long time, that ever increasing "non-1%'er" populations is lowering the overall influence of those whom are not in the 1%.

Why?

Because its easier to "pay less" or "nothing at all" to contracted or indentured "labor" when there is another willing laborer/slave waiting in the wings to do the work for less or nothing at all. Its actually quite simple, if those not in the 1% refused to get married or have babies from here on out & block any future immigration, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages. Otherwise nothing they want to get "worked on" would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up.

Skyfloating
The implication of your philosophy is that if one person gains, another loses. The opposite is true. No money is made without providing some sort of gain for another person.

Contrary to popular, academic and authoritative opinions, history has already proved my above noted tactic to be VERY effective against the 1%:

Before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school, have part-time jobs. Teens at one time, made up a sizable portion of the workforce and changes in employment practices favoring "low-skill/low-wage illegal immigrant labor" has decimated the "first job" prospects of America youth today. These currently jobless teens would fill a sizable portion of the initial loss of "low-skill/low-wage illegal immigrant labor" almost instantaneously. Now whether they do a good job or not, should not be a part of this debate. The fact is these teens are a huge source of untapped low-skill/low-wage labor in the USA.

Second, here is a modern example of a company with a big contract to fill and absolutely no "will" to increase wages to attract experience personnel, nor the desire to train inexperienced ones ON the job. Instead they put out a story on the web bellyaching:

Economy & competitive position; Is shortage due to skills or wages?

The reason this happens is because these "owners of capital" believe there is an endless supply of applicants willing to underbid the value their labor. To a certain extent this is true, currently. This particular employer, noted in the article, has gone ABOVE & BEYOND what even the bottom of the employee market will accept per hour, but somehow despite "no job takers" the employer/owner is still delusional about their "real" hiring options. And even worse, is that this company actually had a contract at the time, that needed to be fulfilled, with revenue coming in. Which should have been used to beef up & train staff, yet they still chose to drag their feet. Makes me wonder if they eventually lost the contract to non-performance?

BayesLike
Those who are squeezed out are going to be less and less happy in the next 20+ years. There will be social unrest as the unprepared old-economy middle class is dissolved into an increasingly poorer status. They don't have the skills to succeed in the new economy and, since the popular culture for so long has reviled the technical "nerd," they are very unlikely to see how to get out of the situation they find themselves in. It's very unlikely heavy manufacturing will ever return and need a large workforce, automation will dominate. And automation is likely to continue to displace the low end of technical workers as it has for the last 20 years. I'd expect that even the concept of mega-cities will be heavily adapted -- we won't need as close quarters to conduct business and communicate efficiently. People will be able to spread out some and commuting will not be as necessary. Perhaps some of the extended family will eventually return? I'd be surprised if something like a drone (when physical presence is needed) or avatar (when virtual presence suffices) salesman does not arise as a "presence" is more efficient and less expensive than actually having to be there.

You can see the near future trend for the average worker by looking at the changes which has happened in particular services like: auto repair, TV and cable and communications installers, central air and heating installers, etc. It's all going to get more technically demanding and require a different level of education. Those who can't transition and who are unlucky in finding an old economy job will become the new poor.

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job & on-the-job training with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government & with the help of big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they currently don’t want people dropping out of high school. Then strongly encourage that same high school graduate to attend junior college immediatey out of high school, then on to a 4 year university and finally entering a Masters degree or PhD, because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME in the market, with everyone looking for and willing to work chasing after scarce jobs whom the market CANNOT provide employment for.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with on-the-job training with an 8th grade education they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond 8th grade, all while they spend that time solely finishing formal schooling!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Soon, easily accessed welfare will add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort to those “not seeking employment”, not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce future jobs. The extra years of welfare then are acting in the same way, to the larger economy, as the increased minimum education levels required for employment. Essentially to decrease the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY as many “capitalists” suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.

BayesLike
Looks just like the old 80/20 rule to me. We see the 80/20 rule almost everywhere we look. 20% of x makes 80% of y. For example, 20% of the product lines make 80% of the income in a business. 20% of the customers are the source of 80% of your customer problems. It goes on just about everywhere. It should be no surprise to anyone that 20% of the population holds 80% of the wealth. It would be really odd if that was not the case!

I'd like to see the data which indicates this 80/20 rule, which is very common in all sorts of human activities, is associated with an impending complete breakdown of society. I suspect it wasn't that long ago that kings (Tzars, Emperors, etc) plus a few close relatives owned nearly 100% and they were a lot less than 5% of the population. So, no, I don't believe the claim if it's close to 80/20 -- meaning 80% of the wealth is held by 20% of the population -- is a sign of a problem. Remember 20% is 1 in 5, that means a lot of examples of wealth exist around you on a daily basis.

I think rather that there may be some data manipulation, specifically picking and choosing of what to include and not include as societal breakdowns, going on behind the scenes. I've seen this claim before, it seemed very suspicious then and still does now. I've never see a definition of what qualifies as a "societal breakdown" nor do we know what span of time and government types this is claim is supposedly built upon.

Here is your answer:

Guess when the largest “recorded” wage increase happened in history for, non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency?

Any ideas?

I’ll tell you, it was after the black death pandemic in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England.

How is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post-black-death-pandemic still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people, so, in order for ANY work to get done they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables more, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare. The next obvious step for government to further reduce the number of people participating in the full-time labor market is to allow them easier access to welfare or as some have been recommending lately, a guaranteed minimum wage or allowance that everyone gets, without having to provide labor to an employer first. I’m not going to go into any specific economic theory, but this above noted cohort of non-participants collecting a base amount of guaranteed welfare/allowance will likely keep wages stable for those whom are still working full-time. If all people capable of working full-time, entered the job market simultaneously, wages would crash and to a certain extent have, as of 2014.

Hence, if those not in the 1% refused to get married or have babies from here on out & aggressively block any future immigration, both legal and illegal, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages for non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers,. Otherwise nothing they want to get "worked on" would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up.

It is truly a sad day when people actually advocate wealth redistribution.

The stench of envy has permeated the masses. If you want more, earn it. Innovate, improve, invent, dont demand people lose their wealth via stroke of the government pen backed up by the threat of the government gun.

Is it any wonder the 1% want nothing to do with the 99%? The 99% actually demand that the 1% sacrifice their wealth.

Id give a giant middle finger to that group too.

doubletap
It is truly a sad day when people actually advocate wealth redistribution.

The stench of envy has permeated the masses. If you want more, earn it. Innovate, improve, invent, dont demand people lose their wealth via stroke of the government pen backed up by the threat of the government gun.

Is it any wonder the 1% want nothing to do with the 99%? The 99% actually demand that the 1% sacrifice their wealth.

Id give a giant middle finger to that group too.

edit on 25-3-2014 by doubletap because: (no reason given)

Did you read anything I wrote above?

Its not simply about "wealth redistribution", its about overabundance of labor on the market and the ability of the 1% to artificially drive down wages of the 99%. When the Black Death came about and wiped out "excess labor", the 1%'ers of the day somehow found "extra money" to pay said labor, for services rendered. That means it was always available and wages could have been higher previously, but instead the 1%, of the day, chose to play the game, "pit the desperate against each other". The 1% are playing a similar dangerous game today, but they believe "tech" will make them impervious to retribution financially, biologically, philosophically, culturally or physically. History says otherwise to such notions.

VforVendettea
The most recent was the French revolution where they killed the one percent
The most effective was the peasants revolt where they burned the debt, deeds and bondage records.
Perhaps the next one will be a combination of the two destroy records and cull the psychopaths in society - they 'can' test for that most executives, politicitians and the one percent would fail that test btw.

I haven't gotten into it yet, but the French Revolution and the Peasant's Revolt also function within my "scarce-labor of ALL types" theory, which always results in higher wages being paid to non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers. During the French Revolution, from 1789 to 1799, birth rates fell dramatically and the earlier he Peasants Revolt, of 1381, not surprisingly, had roots in the Black Death. In fact, the Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351", which was a law that gave an artificial & legal means for the 1% to lower the rising wages of the lower classes, despite there being a huge shortage of available labor and "market conditions" justifying those resulting higher wages.

Newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99% and the 1% know this.

reply to post by doubletap


To be clear, I do not believe that wealth distribution should involve giving money to those who haven't earned it; I do believe in the spirit of capitalism and earning your way. What I have a problem with is hard working people struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck while trust fund babies reap profits solely because they were born into the right family. Have you ever watched Undercover Boss? Executives and the 1% are completely out of touch with the work that goes into the products they are getting rich off of. Yes there should be different pay scales for different jobs, but the current atrocity of how wealth is distributed is completely unacceptable for people to survive.

Where do you get the idea that any one of us must make a 'sacrifice?' Such a notion is completely missing the point, which is that the correlation between the distribution of capital and invested labor should actually, and consistently, produce a solid, sensible, and reliable equation that is 'fair' across the board. There is nothing hypocritical about probing for answers and demanding reparation when a victimized party is being exploited. Your reasoning suggests that a person shouldn't gripe about the pain of losing their hand, when they could have easily lost an arm. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by kissy princess


The same way the 1% exploit us we exploit the poor of the world.
Your shirt, your coffee cup, computer, shoes were all most likely made by someone who technically lives below the poverty line and works 60 hours a week under slave labour like conditions.

Dont get me wrong I think its sick the difference between rich and poor in the western world but its even sicker when you compare the average westerner to the average Cambodian or Laos citizen.

If there was some sort of Global wealth redistribution so everyone had the same resources you would lose a hell of a lot more than you realise.

If it was just US redistribution then you would be fine but thats my point, how can any of us expect others to give up their wealth when we wont???

halfpint0701
reply to post by doubletap

 

To be clear, I do not believe that wealth distribution should involve giving money to those who haven't earned it; I do believe in the spirit of capitalism and earning your way. What I have a problem with is hard working people struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck while trust fund babies reap profits solely because they were born into the right family. Have you ever watched Undercover Boss? Executives and the 1% are completely out of touch with the work that goes into the products they are getting rich off of. Yes there should be different pay scales for different jobs, but the current atrocity of how wealth is distributed is completely unacceptable for people to survive.

Yes, I have seen the show quite a few times. Unless you believe that a CEO of a megacorp should know each and every job, its pretty much a moot point.

Could Obama do the job of an NSA analyst? How about a Navy SEAL? A forest ranger? No. The president is the "CEO of America" and expecting the leader of a company to be knowledgeable about each and evry job that business has is a little ridiculous.

Any data on exactly how many "trust fund babies" are included in the 1%? Very few compared to the number of those who earned their wealth.

If you started a business and it became huge, wouldnt you want to pass on the fruits of your labor to your children so they wouldnt have to struggle the way you did? Or do you advocate the government takes most of it to redistribute to others who have done nothing for it?

There isnt a right to a certain income or a certain standard of living. If you want it, it is up to you to make yourself valuable enough to earn it.

BrianFlanders

demus

BrianFlanders

They couldn't possibly believe that people won't protest if they can actually see and understand what's happening. So why would they do that? Shouldn't they be sneaky instead? Wouldn't it be worth being just a little less rich if it was going to keep them at the top much longer?

not all the people in 1% are the same.
trust me, they are sneaky as much as they can be.

actually if you consider that they are fooling and keeping under control 99% they are doing excellent job.

Really? Considering the fact that just about everyone seems to know about it, they don't even seem to be fooling 30%. The biggest part of control would be controlling the information.

edit on 25-3-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

They no longer have to hide it so they don't bother wasting the energy and resources trying. I wonder how all the out of work spin doctors feel now?

IkNOwSTuff

The same way the 1% exploit us we exploit the poor of the world.
Your shirt, your coffee cup, computer, shoes were all most likely made by someone who technically lives below the poverty line and works 60 hours a week under slave labour like conditions.

Dont get me wrong I think its sick the difference between rich and poor in the western world but its even sicker when you compare the average westerner to the average Cambodian or Laos citizen.

If there was some sort of Global wealth redistribution so everyone had the same resources you would lose a hell of a lot more than you realise.

If it was just US redistribution then you would be fine but thats my point, how can any of us expect others to give up their wealth when we wont???

I wouldn't call the comparision 'sick,' but I see your point. I wonder what it would look like if resources were made available, evenly, to all the people on the planet - by that examination, we could then truly determine if we are overpopulated, as well as the ideal ratio of human population (taking into consideration the nature of exponential growth) to a finite supply of natural resources. However, again, I think the video demonstrates that there is more than enough capital to go around, at least for the States - now if this description of the ratio of wealth discrepancy to population is true for the U.S.(a microcosm), then it is wise to examine if it reflects the nature of the world as a whole (as above, so below). If we find that the macrocosm shares a similarity to the nature of exploitation of the U.S., then the application of a fair distribution of capital to labor (world-wide) would thus eliminate the possibility of any 'sacrifice' of plenty that the 99% (of U.S. citizens) currently enjoy, so to benefit the population of the world in its entirety.

best,
kissy

doubletap

Any data on exactly how many "trust fund babies" are included in the 1%? Very few compared to the number of those who earned their wealth.

If you started a business and it became huge, wouldnt you want to pass on the fruits of your labor to your children so they wouldn't have to struggle the way you did? Or do you advocate the government takes most of it to redistribute to others who have done nothing for it?

There isnt a right to a certain income or a certain standard of living. If you want it, it is up to you to make yourself valuable enough to earn it.

Not this argument again...(deep breath & sigh)

It has been proven MANY times that the Forbes 400 list is made up almost entirely of people whom came from the Upper Classes or at the least came from the very peak of the Upper Middle class. Do exception exist? Absolutely, but in great minority. I simply can not let such propaganda continue to be cited by internet shills, OVER & OVER, whom continuously comment about "earned wealth", whenever the topic of "previous family wealth" arises in regard to the worlds current titans of industry.

When I look at the Forbes 400, I see 350+ people whom came from wealthy families. Some of them certainly acquired more wealth than their parents had given them to begin with, but VERY FEW, if any, came from what I would consider a lower middle class backgrounds or less. I would even argue that to get on the Forbes 400 list, coming from “at least” an Upper Middle class family is the BARE minimum requirement.

I typically use four well known examples, where being from the Very Upper Middle class was a base requirement to enter a particular industry, with even an inkling of chance for financial success:

Bill Gates had access to a mainframe computer in High School in 1969. My parents of the same age didn’t use or see a computer until the early 1980′s and even then it was something they only experienced and got trained to use at their jobs. Is it really that surprising that Bill Gates was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Mark Zuckerberg got his first computer around 12 years old and at some point his father hired someone to tutor him in programing. That computer adjusted for inflation would probably be worth close to $3,000-$4,000 today, not including tutoring costs. To put things into perspective my father had a computer in the early 1990′s in his home office that cost him about $3,000 and I was not allowed to ever touch it, my used car in high school cost less to buy at the time. Is it really that surprising that Mark Zuckerberg was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Jeff Bezos claims he paid for college on his own dime and at some point started Amazon with his own money, HOWEVER, he admits there was a point where he needed financial help/loan to keep the business afloat. Eventually he went to his parents who loaned him $300,000 after taking out a second mortgage on their home. How many parents here on the ATS Forums would give their children a $300,000 loan, leveraged against their home, for a start-up business? Is it really that surprising that Jeff Bezos was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Donald Trump, well what do I need to say here, he inherited his fathers $40 million dollar real estate business. Its certainly not surprising that Donald Trump was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying any of the above people were not “movers & shakers” whom to date, have earned their “keep” through "great effort", but lets also not fool ourselves. If they had come from any lower class background than they actually did, their greatest achievements in life would have been greatly diminished, because the "achievement bar” would be lowered, due to their “spring boards” also simultaneously being lowered.

Think of it this way, if they had not come from the Upper Classes of society, Bill Gates AT BEST would be a 6 figure VP or Pres at a software company today, Mark Z would be AT BEST a 6 figure star programmer at a Google or Riot games type company, Jeff Bezos would be AT BEST a top Costco regional or district type manager pulling in 6 figures and Donald Trump would AT BEST be a small time developer working with much less capital.

I’ve seen this many times in life, you can’t be a dummy and turn wealth into more wealth; but being smart in turn, also won’t allow you to rub two nickels together, with no family connections nor financial support, and THEN turn those two nickels into multi-million/billion dollar company in 20 years. Certainly not circa 1999-2014. A person could have done such after the war in 1945, but that was a TOTALLY different world in terms of codes, regulations and financial polices. We don’t live in that world anymore. If you want to see how money is actually made today, look up how the “Riot Games” founders got their first $1 million venture capitalist investor. I’ll give you a hint, it was the Donald Trump way (i.e. a big cash loan from family).

Also, lets assume the that at least 1/8th of the Forbes 400 list POSSIBLY came from relative poverty. My clearly defined exception, noted above, can explain such. Basically, after the war in 1945, it was possible to rise beyond ones class without having much previous family wealth, due to the world being TOTALLY different in terms of codes, regulations and financial polices; However, trying to do something similar, without some family financial assistance, has NOT really been possible since, circa 1999-2013

So of this “1/8th former lower class, now on the Forbes 400 ”, what percentage would you say earned enough wealth to be on the Forbes 400 BEFORE 1999? I would say 100%, pointing out, that most of them were likely on their way to that qualifying figure well before the 1990′s.

My point still stands, that we don’t live in that “post WWII” world anymore. If you want to see how money is actually made TODAY, look up how “Riot Games” founders got their first $1 million venture capitalist investor. Without family connections and FREE high level business guidance, there would be NO Riot Games company today. There’s nothing wrong with that, but its not some fairy tale “rags to riches” or “boot straps / elbow grease” story. This is the now typical “riches to more riches” story, which is VERY, VERY, VERY common today. Much more so NOW than it EVER was in the past. If you want to make money today with high profit margins, you have few choices to emulate today, which is why I pointed out Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump. They are the poster children for how money is made TODAY.

Basically, if you can’t do it the way these guys did it, you’re not going to find much success, due to the way the market, codes, regulations and financial polices have been structured in the last 15 years. There are no more Henry Fords or Thomas Edison’s, today these "old-world style innovators", without "initial family capital" are simply relegated to being someones employee, whom will NEVER have enough capital to start a real business with multi-million/billion dollar earnings potential.

If you can't see it or didn't see it developing over the last 20 years, then it should become PAINFULLY obvious that you've NEVER been very high on the food-chain, to observe & digest this market evolution, first hand.

SprocketUK
That wealth distribution chart also goes a long way to explain teen pregnancy, drug use and crime. There was a study a while ago that showed countries like Norway where the top earners had 20x the bottom earners had far lower incidences of the negative things that ultimately cost society more money. Have a look for "the spirit level" if you want to know more.

Anyway, with the greater inequality comes higher crime rates etc, abd who picks up the tab for all this? Mostly the bottom 80% cos they arent able to dodge taxes like the seriously rich, so, bizarrely, the poorest are subsidising the lifestyle of the richest by paying for the fallout from the crazy income differential. kind of mad when people get so het up about welfare claimants buying a pack of cigarettes or something, isn't it?

There are more differences between Norway and somewhere like the USA. Norway has a population of 5 million spread out in lots of of small towns all over along the coastal fjords. The largest city is only 600,000 people. Everyone goes to either university or college.

I have no doubt that this video is generally accurate. No argument about the numbers at all. Where I disagree is with the manner in which the end is presented. "Does the CEO work 380 times harder"? (paraphrased) What kind of question is that? It isn't a matter of harder work, it is a matter of production, intelligence and importance to the company.

So...allow me to ask this. Turn off the sound and watch the video again. We are going to play a little game. Lets say this same chart is comparing a person's looks. You know...the left side is horribly ugly and the right side is extremely beautiful. So...shall I suggest making the beautiful less beautiful? Maybe scar their face or take away their clothes, makeup, etc. Of course you wouldn't do that. They are who they are and at least at some level...worked toward a portion of what they are. So why do some think that we should scar them...ummm...I mean take their money and things?

But lets be realistic...turn the sound off. On the far left is a person who does nothing. Well...as much nothing as a person can do. On the far right (for argument's sake) is Bill Gates. Started MS, works with and gives millions to charities, etc. We all know Bill. And there are a bunch of Bills. The video refers to the 1%. That is 1% of 311 million. That 1% is three million, one hundred and ten thousand people. So I suggest this. Place yourself on the graph they show and then think of real life. Look at those you know are less important in their work then you and those above you...again with Bill Gates on the far left. It looks pretty accurate to me.

In closing. What...are you jealous? Do you want what others have and therefore decide to hate them or plan to steal from them? Is that what we have become? And, are you now going to run to Hollywood and start slashing faces to make yourself higher on the beauty scale?

Lets stop the hate of those better off than us and instead direct our hate to the ones trying to tell you they are your enemy. They aren't. Look at the 1%. They are the business owners we work for, the CEOs of the companies we have stock and 401Ks with. The enemy are the people trying to divide us and make us hate and label others. Typically these are the socialists and the democrats. And...for sure...the people who made this video. The goal of this video is to generate hate, anger and a feeling of "gimmie gimmie". They are the problem. Don't allow the true evil people divide us...that is what they want...so they can control us all.

This has nothing to do with being rich, and everything to do with being solid middle class, gone are the days when dad could make 40k and support a house an average car and 4 kids and a wife on his income alone. This is the problem, now duel income families struggle. Even those with good jobs, lets say you have a family where the wife is a nurse and the husband is a firefighter, 2 good jobs, in the past that would be considered upper middle class, now it is just middle class, taxes eating away at there income.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


I don't hate the ones who're worked and continue to work hard for the money they have, and no I don't believe in taking away from them to give to those who don't want to earn their own. Wealth distribution is not all about taking from one to give to the other. To me the core of the problem is the lack of equal opportunity for anyone other than those with access to money to do more than merely survive. The middle class has all but disappeared, and that's what I have a problem with.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


You and I are the lucky ones. Even after the 2008 crash and the subsequent job losses, we can still afford internet and can voice our problems. My grown up kids can barely afford the basics on their incomes.

Poor and working poor are not a threat to your way of life. Just by the very fact that they have no wealth, shows they are not greedy or over consuming. But even in America, food and shelter are too hard to get and keep every day.

Maybe that is the american dream you have for the future, but I hope it is not for most of my countrymen.

Why don't all the 1% move to third world countries where they don't pay taxes and its people will accept slavery?