5 ms·
The issue is simple to understand: as population grows and technology grows even faster, there should be a steady stream of wealth increase. This has been obser
by coliveira 9y ago
The issue is simple to understand: as population grows and technology grows even faster, there should be a steady stream of wealth increase. This has been observed as is obvious to everyone. However, if we allow the bulk of this wealth to be controlled by a tiny part of the population, we are creating a huge problem to current and to future generations. A hereditary oligarchy can be terrible to our civilization, and this is what we see forming nowadays. I am not against people participating in the creation of wealth and reaping the rewards, but these differences in wealth need to be leveled over time. Unfortunately, short-sighted politics of the US and other countries are giving more and more power to wealthy people so that they can amass more money without visible contributions to society.
- charlesdm 9y agoMaybe. I don't want this to come off bad, but maybe the work a lot of people do just isn't that important and thus doesn't warrant increases in salary? If a company needs someone to do X, and 5 viable candidates can be found for $Y -- there really is no reason to increase wages. Anyone with some capital could've invested in Netflix, Facebook or Google several years ago and would have achieved a good return on their money. Even if some sort of global wealth tax would be introduced (that's a big IF) to fix the accumulation of extreme wealth, would people be better off? The amounts collected, spread out over the entire population, would be relatively small. And most of this new wealth is mostly paper wealth -- the headline next year could very well be: "World's richest lost $3tn of their wealth".
- nofilter 9y agoHow well does that argument hold up tho'? I mean, there is always _someone_ who does it cheaper. Always. In fact I know of a web developer, who actually does quite decent work and is available for as little as $5 per hour. Does that mean everyone in that skill level should get paid so little?
- charlesdm 9y agoCheaper yes, but perhaps not better. I'd be happy to demand a few million a year for high quality development work from an employer, but the laws of supply and demand do apply.
- bko 9y agoHow would you allocate work? Suppose you are paying a “fair” wage above the market wage, so you have 5 equally qualified candidates apply. They are not allowed to compete on price since you already decided to pay what you consider a fair wage. How do you decide who gets the work?
- nofilter 9y agoI would hire whoever produces the best quality of work for that amount of money, but if they all produce the exact same quality of work, I would hire the one who takes the least amount of money.
- dclowd9901 9y agoThe reason anyone can make this kind of wage work is through consumer credit. Eliminate consumer credit, and wages will go up/prices will go down, I would bet my life on it.
- marcosdumay 9y agoIt's way simpler. As population grows, the 500 richest people (whoever they are) are expected to get richer even if the wealth distribution does not change. And as the society gets richer, they are expected to get richer too. So, if there is any indication that wealth has been accumulating faster, it is not on the article. And as such, the article is valueless and a complete loss of time.
- coliveira 9y agoThe indication you're searching for is called wealth inequality. It is a measure of how much more money the richest people have compared to the rest of the population, and it has increased significantly over the years: http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ There is an economist called Thomas Piketty who has made his name by studying and measuring inequality over the years. Read his book and you will get a detailed analysis of how inequality has increased in our society.
- marcosdumay 9y agoYes, and that's what the article should be talking about. It's not, so it's garbage.
- hueving 9y agoCan you explain why wealth inequality is bad? If me and the rest the million other people in my city have $100,000, some billionaire in a city somewhere else making another 100 million doesn't really have any impact on me directly. Yet it increases this inequality metric and I'm supposed to be outraged. If the billionaire was using this position to corner the real estate market I'm trying to buy a house in, then I might be upset. But, I could also pool 1,000 of my friends together each with our $100,000 into a corporation and corner a market as well. So why exactly is inequality relevant? Shouldn't we be focused on just raising where the bottom of the income range is rather than cutting down the tall outliers? It seems to me like trying to make yourself wiser by killing everyone with more education than yourself.
- notyourwork 9y agoNot to say I disagree because I do think the wealthiest should contribute meaningfully to society. But when you say "without visible contributions to society." why should an extremely wealthy person have to contribute to society?
- aalleavitch 9y agoWhy should anyone have to contribute to society? Because they benefit from it.
- notyourwork 9y agoThat's a good point - the wealthiest are wealthy because they rely on the economy to continue functioning.
- coliveira 9y agoPeople who do not contribute to society are what we call parasites. Just because your father or grand-grand-father did something useful to the world doesn't justify that you have to live like a king. Modern society destroyed the old feudal order exactly to avoid this kind of social injustice.
- notyourwork 9y agoI completely agree that the richest should contribute to society, especially as someone in the middle class. However, let's pretend I was born into the wealthiest class. If I inherit a business, that business provides jobs (ie. wages) for people, and is a functioning part of the economic system. Does that mean I am not contributing? Regardless of how rich I am, I still need to eat and live and put clothes on my back. Are these not contributions? Or are you suggesting that the wealthiest are parasites simply because they should contribute more to society than someone less financially well off?
- QAPereo 9y agoIf you offshore your profits and workers, avoid taxes, and the usual bag of tricks? Yes, parasite, and what happens to parasites which are too successful?
- sintaxi 9y agoWhat do you mean by "allow"? You're getting into sketchy territory there.
- valuearb 9y agoYou have offered no evidence for any of your assertions for the ill effects. When Elon Musk becomes obscenely wealthy by creating affordable electric cars and space flight, everyone else gets the benefits of affordable electric cars and space flight. Not talking trips to mars, but constellations of satellites offering super cheap worldwide internet.