Discussion It's absurd as to how few people have so much wealth whereas the rest suffer

[ijustwishtodie]

I saw a site which puts the wealth of the ultra rich people into perspective and it's horrifying as to how much wealth they have. The top of the society has so much wealth yet society still blames the homeless people for being homeless. How absurd.

Wealth, shown to scale

Wealth inequality in the United States is out of control. Here we visualize the issue in a unique way.

mkorostoff.github.io

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[sserafim]

It is absurd, but that's just how it is, I guess

"Some people have to suffer so that others can gain."

"The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must."

 

[1MiserableGuy]

I saw a site which puts the wealth of the ultra rich people into perspective and it's horrifying as to how much wealth they have. The top of the society has so much wealth yet society still blames the homeless people for being homeless. How absurd.

Wealth, shown to scale

Wealth inequality in the United States is out of control. Here we visualize the issue in a unique way.

mkorostoff.github.io

What are your thoughts on this?

"You will own nothing, and you will be happy"

 

[Malaria]

I both resent rich people and envy them. The vast majority of people born into poverty die in poverty. The idea of a "self made billionaire" is largely a myth. The vast majority of rich people were born rich. I realize money doesn't solve all one's problems, but I guarantee you that quite a lot of people's problems would be solved if they could afford certain things, like surgeries they need.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's utterly disgusting when you think about it. I think people should be rewarded for working hard. I have no problem with that. There needs to be incentive. But the discrepancy in distribution of wealth is terrible.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Well, when hundreds of millions of people all around the world give you 1$ every day bc you provide services to them they want to consume then you have to become the richest person one day. Why is Apple so "rich" bc half of the world population or even more is crazy about their products and deliver their money to them.

I hope you get my point.

Money gathers at the points in the system that sell products that everyone wants to have and/or needs. Yes, you could argue, take 90% taxes ... but believe me those taxes won't reach you, you won't have a better life just bc the ultra rich would be taxed with 90% .... rather the opposite will be the case there is no incentive to start a business at all.

That will lead into a "system- and economic discussion" ... imo there is no real solution for it.

 

[surroundedbydemons]

What I find more absurd is that the ability to accumulate more wealth grows as one becomes more rich, powerful, and influential.
I think it is called Matthew effect of accumulated advantage.
Why is it absurd? Because if you are the most successful, you can free ride for the rest of your life since no one will be able to catch up and you have to exert very little effort, if any.

I think there is also another effect of accumulated disadvantage which influences the perceived inequality even more. If you are not succesful, you will stay at your level at best... statistically, you are destined to lose your position.


Quickly eyeballing the distribution of household wealth over the years, you can notice that the top 10% usually gain more during the market upturn and do not lose a lot during the declines/crises compared to the poor and middle class. (gain or lose percentage-wise relative to their wealth)


Image source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wealth-distribution-in-america/

~~~
Just a food for thought.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

@surroundedbydemons does that include all assets (incl. owned property) or only liquid assets and cash?

 

[surroundedbydemons]

@surroundedbydemons does that include all assets (incl. owned property) or only liquid assets and cash?

From the link:

This graphic charts patterns in U.S. household wealth, based on data from the Federal Reserve.

Which goes to Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/)

Off the top of my head, the data should include both liquid and illiquid assets. (and why would your net worth decrease if you buy a house?)

Quickly googling, I found a 60-page paper Introducing the Distributional Financial Accounts of the United States (https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2019017pap.pdf). I think this can answer your question in full.


~~~
I am not American.

 

[Pluto]

The notion of the majority of people being subservient to monarchs, lords, autocrats or plutocrats is not new. It is perhaps the very definition of civilisation, as opposed to societies that pre-date ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. In some ways, the post-Industrial Revolution era of overall economic growth and population expansion is the exception. We are witnessing its chaotic demise.

The problem, as first encountered with historical events like the Standard Oil monopoly, is that wealth begets wealth. We have various monopolies today, such as Amazon, which by their nature will easily destroy any competitor as soon as it starts to emerge.

Then there is the habit of the billionaire class in taking ownership of mass media. Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, Facebook, Twitter, etc. This allows them to freely influence elections or control the culture's narratives and conflicts to their own benefit. This we call 'democracy.'

On top of that, wealth allows for direct influence of politicians. Lobby groups can make donations to the right person, then reap rewards to the tune of billions via major contracts.

On top of that, money can pay for top financial advisors and strategists who can cleverly navigate even financial crises to ensure that their clients benefit from all government stimulus spending, tax cuts and so on. For example, even if there's a pandemic, they will be quick to invest in private companies who will be receiving major government contracts.

The end result is an ongoing acceleration of wealth transfer from the masses to the top 1%. What wealth remains for the lower classes requires ever more bitter competition for the have-nots to acquire.

Since we are talking about the US, consider the various culture wars pushed by all sides of the media. Immigrants vs. locals. Black vs. white. Men vs. women. Republican vs. Democrat. LGBT vs. straight. Christian vs. atheist. Boomer vs. Gen-Z. On and on it goes. What nobody realises is that all of these groups have deadly serious grievances which can be traced to the root problem, the invisible elephant in the room, of wealth disparity. We are manipulated to attack fellow poor people while the billionaires sit around playing with spacecraft.

 

[sserafim]

The notion of the majority of people being subservient to monarchs, lords, autocrats or plutocrats is not new. It is perhaps the very definition of civilisation, as opposed to societies that pre-date ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. In some ways, the post-Industrial Revolution era of overall economic growth and population expansion is the exception. We are witnessing its chaotic demise.

The problem, as first encountered with historical events like the Standard Oil monopoly, is that wealth begets wealth. We have various monopolies today, such as Amazon, which by their nature will easily destroy any competitor as soon as it starts to emerge.

Then there is the habit of the billionaire class in taking ownership of mass media. Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, Facebook, Twitter, etc. This allows them to freely influence elections or control the culture's narratives and conflicts to their own benefit. This we call 'democracy.'

On top of that, wealth allows for direct influence of politicians. Lobby groups can make donations to the right person, then reap rewards to the tune of billions via major contracts.

On top of that, money can pay for top financial advisors and strategists who can cleverly navigate even financial crises to ensure that their clients benefit from all government stimulus spending, tax cuts and so on. For example, even if there's a pandemic, they will be quick to invest in private companies who will be receiving major government contracts.

The end result is an ongoing acceleration of wealth transfer from the masses to the top 1%. What wealth remains for the lower classes requires ever more bitter competition for the have-nots to acquire.

Since we are talking about the US, consider the various culture wars pushed by all sides of the media. Immigrants vs. locals. Black vs. white. Men vs. women. Republican vs. Democrat. LGBT vs. straight. Christian vs. atheist. Boomer vs. Gen-Z. On and on it goes. What nobody realises is that all of these groups have deadly serious grievances which can be traced to the root problem, the invisible elephant in the room, of wealth disparity. We are manipulated to attack fellow poor people while the billionaires sit around playing with spacecraft.

Why are people subservient to the ruling class? Are they forced into it or is it out of choice? Why is society built like this? Why is it hierarchical?

 

[Pluto]

I can only speculate.

People always had tribes with leaders. A society with no leader is not a society. If everyone is president, no one is president. Even wolves have 'alpha' pack leaders.

In early societies, there was a lot of menial labour to be done. There still is. So some system needs to be in place that makes things happen.

The problem for us is the recent memory of the classic Boomer experience - stable employment for decades, affordable basic food/housing/fuel (for the most part), ever-improving lifestyle goodies, etc., then everyone ends up a millionaire who can retire in luxury - was something that we thought would last unto future generations. But it was just a passing phase.

 

[leavingthesoultrap]

It's absurd how rich western boomers are

 

[sserafim]

I can only speculate.

People always had tribes with leaders. A society with no leader is not a society. If everyone is president, no one is president. Even wolves have 'alpha' pack leaders.

In early societies, there was a lot of menial labour to be done. There still is. So some system needs to be in place that makes things happen.

The problem for us is the recent memory of the classic Boomer experience - stable employment for decades, affordable basic food/housing/fuel (for the most part), ever-improving lifestyle goodies, etc., then everyone ends up a millionaire who can retire in luxury - was something that we thought would last unto future generations. But it was just a passing phase.

Who becomes the leader? What qualities do they have? Do you think that anarchy could work? What if everyone was equal?

 

[surroundedbydemons]

Who becomes the leader? What qualities do they have?

There might be someone prominent for marketing purposes, but the real leaders are different from that.
Based on my observations, there isn't one particular leader but 2 clusters arise.


Let me answer in a more joking way:

There is an "Alpha" wolf, as @Pluto noted.
This "Alpha" leader prefers to stay at the top of the hierarchy and guides the crowd because he enjoys doing it.
Alphas lead by authority and power; they do not shy away from using physical force if needed during both within-group and between-group conflicts.

Now, there is also a "Sigma" wolf. Sigma wolf is not a loner (contrary to the popular meme) and shares traits similar to those of the Alpha. Sigma does not seek leadership as the Alpha wolf but is ready to lead when the situation arises. Sigma is okay with guiding the crowd while sitting in the back; Sigma leads by example rather than by sheer force or aggression.

Both are dominant: Alpha is dominant in an overt manner, and Sigma is more dominant on the mental level.

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

guys guys I have the solution that works with our current system

We should make restrictions from local and state governments on high density residential units illegal federally in all non-comercially zoned areas to drive down housing costs in the sprawling suburbs that often restrict builders to more expensive single-family homes. We also need deregulation of mandatory offsets which eat up space and aren't always wanted or needed. We need to make it easier to divide lots and build small homes on those divisions as well, no mandatory square footage requirements.

We could also create a subdivision of the military (or repurpose a part of the army corps of engineers) to primarily build concrete affordable housing complexes or concrete hosuing complexes for the homeless. More people (I think) would join if the primary mission was to help people directly. This would help alleviate the military recruitment crisis while taking advantage of the military's powerful logistics network to build affordable housing quickly and efficiently, and the labor wouldn't cost much more than what is currently already being spent. Using the power of cheap land from eminent domain (good luck trying to get the federal government to pay millions for your crummy vacant lot) and the army's endless supply of heavy machinery and cheap labor, the sky is the limit! We just need to stop wasting our money bombing children in the middle east and it'll all be possible in the next decade I swear!