3 ms·

Combined bet worth are not indicator of unbalance in wealth ( i mean in quality of living and generally living easiness).. those kind of metrics are misleading

by fvv 6y ago

Combined bet worth are not indicator of unbalance in wealth ( i mean in quality of living and generally living easiness).. those kind of metrics are misleading when presented this way imho.. let me explain : Stock market now and meet worth to companies owner while they may benefit only marginally from those money.. If elon musk has net worth of 100b and for living use 1m\y is it different from a guy who earn 2m and use 2m\y to live ? Is musk worse for disparity of whealt ? And a man who earn 30k and use 10k to live ? Is him different from a guy who earn 10k and use 10k to live ? Yeah the first ok one may have more cash if something goes bad.. but theyr lifestyle may be the same ... I think that the difference should be calculated on what we spend not in net worth ... if I have 1 trilion$ and spend 0 and live like a homeless because I don't wond to spend those money but maybe because I don't need or can spend ..why should I been considered as society monster from those kind of statistics ? Net worth over certain threshold is non sense imo , someone who own a company may be calculated was total company value net worth but probably have a quote normal life and his net worth is in the market\street creating jobs, plus having a 1m earning and 1m spending i could have net worth 0 , but i would me different from who have 300$ income year An ultra rich doesn't abuse society until he spend his money for things useless to the society imho.. that's what should be tracked. How much wealth is wasted for a golden toilet .. not accumulated

fvv 6y ago
Plus there should be other things factored in .. like the contribution to the society.. is worse a man with a net wealth of 1m which is an illegal drug leader than a 100m entrepreneur in a solar energy sector.. stats saying just a number like that may depict a worsening scenario while instead maybe is getting better.. incomplete view must always be taken with skepticism imo
Scandiravian 6y ago
I get confused, when I read the term "society monster", as I think it's a loaded term, that is not reflective of the language used in the article Arguing for more wealth equality is not the same as saying "billionaires are monsters", but having a few people able to fund lobbying and influence political systems, simply because of their wealth, while a large part of the population are cut off from participating in the democratic process, because they do not have the resources for education and the stability to commit long-term to a cause, is in my opinion a death sentence to modern democracy

by fvv 6y ago

fvv 6y ago

Plus there should be other things factored in .. like the contribution to the society.. is worse a man with a net wealth of 1m which is an illegal drug leader than a 100m entrepreneur in a solar energy sector.. stats saying just a number like that may depict a worsening scenario while instead maybe is getting better.. incomplete view must always be taken with skepticism imo

Scandiravian 6y ago

I get confused, when I read the term "society monster", as I think it's a loaded term, that is not reflective of the language used in the article Arguing for more wealth equality is not the same as saying "billionaires are monsters", but having a few people able to fund lobbying and influence political systems, simply because of their wealth, while a large part of the population are cut off from participating in the democratic process, because they do not have the resources for education and the stability to commit long-term to a cause, is in my opinion a death sentence to modern democracy