3 ms·

"I doubt that corporate executives make up a significant percentage of the super-wealthy, despite the attention the media pays to them. " I'm afraid you're wro

by pcurve 11y ago

"I doubt that corporate executives make up a significant percentage of the super-wealthy, despite the attention the media pays to them. " I'm afraid you're wrong on this point. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-OWS http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-i... Corporate executives account for almost 3rd of the top 1%, even if you exclude bankers. Throwing in bankers, and it's almost half. I agree with you on that technology and automation are the main driver in increased leverage against workers. And sadly, government and regulations failed to counteract this leverage.

ClintEhrlich 11y ago
That is interesting, but I'm persuaded that the top one percent was way too broad of a sample. (My lapse. Sorry.) The wealth is concentrated within a narrow subsection of that group. And I don't think that many of them became rich as corporate executives, unless you are including entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, whose wealth was derived from his ownership of a business, not as compensation for his work as an executive. Actually, maybe it is reasonable to include them. But I didn't do so when I made my earlier estimations. Ownership of the means of production is the main intergenerational conduit of capital, which naturally creates large accumulations of inherited wealth. The fact that so many self-made people are now among the world's hyper-rich is a testament to the strength of the technological forces powering startups. And in a sense, Silicon Valley has created the most merit-based process ever devised for crowning an oligarchy. What's really interesting is to think in terms of power laws, which predict a trillionaire within our lifetime. What would that level of divergence result in? Will someone eventually create something so valuable that the equity takes over a significant percentage of the global economy? (e.g. nano or AI breakthrough)

by pcurve 11y ago

ClintEhrlich 11y ago

That is interesting, but I'm persuaded that the top one percent was way too broad of a sample. (My lapse. Sorry.) The wealth is concentrated within a narrow subsection of that group. And I don't think that many of them became rich as corporate executives, unless you are including entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, whose wealth was derived from his ownership of a business, not as compensation for his work as an executive. Actually, maybe it is reasonable to include them. But I didn't do so when I made my earlier estimations. Ownership of the means of production is the main intergenerational conduit of capital, which naturally creates large accumulations of inherited wealth. The fact that so many self-made people are now among the world's hyper-rich is a testament to the strength of the technological forces powering startups. And in a sense, Silicon Valley has created the most merit-based process ever devised for crowning an oligarchy. What's really interesting is to think in terms of power laws, which predict a trillionaire within our lifetime. What would that level of divergence result in? Will someone eventually create something so valuable that the equity takes over a significant percentage of the global economy? (e.g. nano or AI breakthrough)