19 ms·

Global Inequality

51 points by shankarro 6y ago

sedeki 6y ago
Website crashes for me in Safari on mobile (whenever I click on the Tableau widget.)
adamnemecek 6y ago
It makes no sense to compare GDP vs net worths of billionaires since one is annual, one is not.
- pyromine 6y ago
  I think there is times where comparing the ratio of economic stock vs. flow, i.e capital to wealth ratios, but yah the billionaire wealth to GDP comparisons just seem silly. I get what they're trying to say, but it is the weakest way to argue their point.
- onion2k 6y ago
  They're both a measure of 'available' resources at a given time though.
  - adamnemecek 6y ago
    If you deplete one, it’s depleted. The other one is generated next year.
Gunax 6y ago
My criticism has always been around the use of wealth as the indicator. I believe it is chosen instead of income primarily because: 1. It's perhaps easier to determine than income (especially for the ultra-wealthy, who often have negative-income in certain years). 2. The wealth-gap is much greater than the income gap, so leads to more dramatic-sounding statements. But really what we care about is income--especially when one considers that wealth is just unspent income. And income is actually what determines lifestyle.
- refurb 6y ago
  These are good points and to add on, what do they mean when they say “wealth”? Cash? Equities? Real estate? Precious metals? Artwork? Super cars? Some of those are easy to measure and others aren’t. So going by your statement “wealth is just unspent income”, depending on what they consider as “wealth”, you could have person A invest all their disposable income and person B spend all their disposable income. Then in the end analysis person A is wealthy and person B is not despite having the same income.
- Proven 6y ago
  My criticism has always been around why should incomes or wealth be equal. People aren't equal in their abilities, luck and effort. In a just society some ought to be better off than others. I'm disinterested in "global" anything, and also any redistributionist nonsense. I don't care how much wealth Bill Gates has and I don't want any of it; I care how to live given my own circumstances. Maybe I don't even want to be "wealthy" or "average wealthy". In any case, I reject any attempt by some self-appointed redistributionist busybodies to act on my behalf and steal from others.
- twblalock 6y ago
  > But really what we care about is income--especially when one considers that wealth is just unspent income. And income is actually what determines lifestyle. Wealth can borrowed against, in many cases to pursue opportunities to build more wealth such as investing or purchasing rental properties. Wealth enables people to make choices that would be too risky to make for people who depend on an income, such as starting a business. Wealth ensures financial security even if one does not have an income. Wealth buys access and influence. Wealth can be inherited. In other words, wealth is not just money, like income is. Wealth is a form of power.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Yeah sure but the way the Fed decided to economic stimulus is basically money straight into your stocks. You don't have to do any productive work to earn money. That's one of the defining features of deflation.
Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
Stop asking if Peter has more than Paul, and instead focus on whether or not Paul has enough. The individuals this article focuses on have almost all their wealth from options in their own companies - stocks they get by virtue of creating and running the company, which in turn skyrocket in value because they did a good job. The money isn't being taken from anyone, except whoever wants to buy the shares. You lose nothing if Musk's holdings grow by another 10% after Tesla sells lots of cars in China. Stop caring about it.
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
> 10 Men Have As Much Wealth as Many Countries Incorrect. They are comparing wealth with GDP, which would equate to comparing wealth with income.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  It's still a pretty staggering statistic. You really gotta ask, how wealthy does an individual have to be? It appears there is no limit, even beyond the wealth most people can even imagine. Also these individuals' wealth did not derive from income.
  - username90 6y ago
    Return on capital is also income. You should compare that with GDP. Also a better measure of gap between rich and poor since it says how big part of the GDP each group gets.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Capital gains are not taxed as income and in our current economic system capital gains can grow independently of the economy.
      - inter_netuser 6y ago
        how can capital grow independently of the economy? it's a core part of the economy?
  - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Why would there be a limit? How would you enforce it? Much of this covers from options in the brands they built. The stocks aren't being taken from anyone. So... Why would there be a limit? How would you enforce it?
    - KozmoNau7 6y ago
__henil 6y ago
This website is heavier than a black hole and does not even show its content on firefox
LockAndLol 6y ago
By now probably most people are aware of these facts to some degree (not with exact numbers but an inkling). The problem is what to do with that information. So, a question to the rest of HN what are you doing to reduce wealth and income inequality? Me? I'm voting for parties that want to tax the rich+wealthy (people and enterprises) for money coming in and out of the country (or the EU). Further, I try my hardest not to buy from the biggest offenders nor to use their products: Apple, Google, Nestle, Facebook, Amazon, McDonalds, Samsung, LG, etc. I try to buy local products and order from local, national or intra-EU companies. Second-hand or refurbished too. And of course consumption in general is low: goods, energy, water are restricted to the necessary. There aren't many things in my dwelling that I don't need or don't use. It's not always possible, but an attempt is being made.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  I try to follow a similar path of buying local or at least from EU-based companies, organic where possible, and generally keep that in mind when buying something, plus try to look for second-hand whenever possible. Why would I buy a brand new amplifier and speakers or a brand-new bicycle, when the second-hand market is brimming with quality gear? I also vote for the parties with the strongest climate and environmental policies, which is generally the most left-wing parties, so that also fits with my own views on most other things. But like you, my consumption in general is very low, so even if "vote with your wallet" did work as advertised, it wouldn't be doing much at all, an absent vote is a much less powerful signal than an actively cast vote. So I donate to worthy causes and try to argue my views online and encourage people to reduce the consumption, for what good that does. We must turn this consumerism ship around, somehow.
alexashka 6y ago
There is attractiveness inequality, should we post graphs about that too? It's not the inequality that's problematic and it'll always be there, it's what people do with it. I'd say we have global stupidity and short sightedness with exceptions here and there and I'm not sure there was ever a time when this wasn't the case. The obliviousness of the stupid people inhabiting this planet, gravely concerned with getting their bling on asap, no matter the cost to everyone and everything else, is what I'd most like to see gently exposed, comprehended and compensated for. This'll solve most problems for most people, including the stupid ones.
csomar 6y ago
> Credit Suisse defines “wealth” as the value of a household’s financial assets plus real assets (principally housing), minus their debts. This definition excludes a whole category of people: Those whose wealth is 0 (or even negative) but they are rich or at least living like rich people. If you own $10m in assets and have $10m in debt, your wealth is 0 but I'm pretty sure you are not poor. What's the percentage of such people in society? This should make inequality even worse. Then you have a category of people who are not rich on paper but they have access to privileges (ie: government bureaucrats). As bad as inequality on these stats is, I think it's severely under-reported.
randomcarbloke 6y ago
There's nothing inherently wrong with inequality.

Global Inequality

51 points by shankarro 6y ago

sedeki 6y ago

Website crashes for me in Safari on mobile (whenever I click on the Tableau widget.)

adamnemecek 6y ago

It makes no sense to compare GDP vs net worths of billionaires since one is annual, one is not.

pyromine 6y ago
I think there is times where comparing the ratio of economic stock vs. flow, i.e capital to wealth ratios, but yah the billionaire wealth to GDP comparisons just seem silly. I get what they're trying to say, but it is the weakest way to argue their point.
onion2k 6y ago
They're both a measure of 'available' resources at a given time though.
- adamnemecek 6y ago
  If you deplete one, it’s depleted. The other one is generated next year.

Gunax 6y ago

My criticism has always been around the use of wealth as the indicator. I believe it is chosen instead of income primarily because: 1. It's perhaps easier to determine than income (especially for the ultra-wealthy, who often have negative-income in certain years). 2. The wealth-gap is much greater than the income gap, so leads to more dramatic-sounding statements. But really what we care about is income--especially when one considers that wealth is just unspent income. And income is actually what determines lifestyle.

refurb 6y ago
These are good points and to add on, what do they mean when they say “wealth”? Cash? Equities? Real estate? Precious metals? Artwork? Super cars? Some of those are easy to measure and others aren’t. So going by your statement “wealth is just unspent income”, depending on what they consider as “wealth”, you could have person A invest all their disposable income and person B spend all their disposable income. Then in the end analysis person A is wealthy and person B is not despite having the same income.
Proven 6y ago
My criticism has always been around why should incomes or wealth be equal. People aren't equal in their abilities, luck and effort. In a just society some ought to be better off than others. I'm disinterested in "global" anything, and also any redistributionist nonsense. I don't care how much wealth Bill Gates has and I don't want any of it; I care how to live given my own circumstances. Maybe I don't even want to be "wealthy" or "average wealthy". In any case, I reject any attempt by some self-appointed redistributionist busybodies to act on my behalf and steal from others.
twblalock 6y ago
> But really what we care about is income--especially when one considers that wealth is just unspent income. And income is actually what determines lifestyle. Wealth can borrowed against, in many cases to pursue opportunities to build more wealth such as investing or purchasing rental properties. Wealth enables people to make choices that would be too risky to make for people who depend on an income, such as starting a business. Wealth ensures financial security even if one does not have an income. Wealth buys access and influence. Wealth can be inherited. In other words, wealth is not just money, like income is. Wealth is a form of power.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Yeah sure but the way the Fed decided to economic stimulus is basically money straight into your stocks. You don't have to do any productive work to earn money. That's one of the defining features of deflation.

Wolfenstein98k 6y ago

Stop asking if Peter has more than Paul, and instead focus on whether or not Paul has enough. The individuals this article focuses on have almost all their wealth from options in their own companies - stocks they get by virtue of creating and running the company, which in turn skyrocket in value because they did a good job. The money isn't being taken from anyone, except whoever wants to buy the shares. You lose nothing if Musk's holdings grow by another 10% after Tesla sells lots of cars in China. Stop caring about it.

simonebrunozzi 6y ago

> 10 Men Have As Much Wealth as Many Countries Incorrect. They are comparing wealth with GDP, which would equate to comparing wealth with income.

Synaesthesia 6y ago
It's still a pretty staggering statistic. You really gotta ask, how wealthy does an individual have to be? It appears there is no limit, even beyond the wealth most people can even imagine. Also these individuals' wealth did not derive from income.
- username90 6y ago
  Return on capital is also income. You should compare that with GDP. Also a better measure of gap between rich and poor since it says how big part of the GDP each group gets.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Capital gains are not taxed as income and in our current economic system capital gains can grow independently of the economy.
    - inter_netuser 6y ago
      how can capital grow independently of the economy? it's a core part of the economy?
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  Why would there be a limit? How would you enforce it? Much of this covers from options in the brands they built. The stocks aren't being taken from anyone. So... Why would there be a limit? How would you enforce it?
  - KozmoNau7 6y ago

__henil 6y ago

This website is heavier than a black hole and does not even show its content on firefox

LockAndLol 6y ago

By now probably most people are aware of these facts to some degree (not with exact numbers but an inkling). The problem is what to do with that information. So, a question to the rest of HN what are you doing to reduce wealth and income inequality? Me? I'm voting for parties that want to tax the rich+wealthy (people and enterprises) for money coming in and out of the country (or the EU). Further, I try my hardest not to buy from the biggest offenders nor to use their products: Apple, Google, Nestle, Facebook, Amazon, McDonalds, Samsung, LG, etc. I try to buy local products and order from local, national or intra-EU companies. Second-hand or refurbished too. And of course consumption in general is low: goods, energy, water are restricted to the necessary. There aren't many things in my dwelling that I don't need or don't use. It's not always possible, but an attempt is being made.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
I try to follow a similar path of buying local or at least from EU-based companies, organic where possible, and generally keep that in mind when buying something, plus try to look for second-hand whenever possible. Why would I buy a brand new amplifier and speakers or a brand-new bicycle, when the second-hand market is brimming with quality gear? I also vote for the parties with the strongest climate and environmental policies, which is generally the most left-wing parties, so that also fits with my own views on most other things. But like you, my consumption in general is very low, so even if "vote with your wallet" did work as advertised, it wouldn't be doing much at all, an absent vote is a much less powerful signal than an actively cast vote. So I donate to worthy causes and try to argue my views online and encourage people to reduce the consumption, for what good that does. We must turn this consumerism ship around, somehow.

alexashka 6y ago

There is attractiveness inequality, should we post graphs about that too? It's not the inequality that's problematic and it'll always be there, it's what people do with it. I'd say we have global stupidity and short sightedness with exceptions here and there and I'm not sure there was ever a time when this wasn't the case. The obliviousness of the stupid people inhabiting this planet, gravely concerned with getting their bling on asap, no matter the cost to everyone and everything else, is what I'd most like to see gently exposed, comprehended and compensated for. This'll solve most problems for most people, including the stupid ones.

csomar 6y ago

> Credit Suisse defines “wealth” as the value of a household’s financial assets plus real assets (principally housing), minus their debts. This definition excludes a whole category of people: Those whose wealth is 0 (or even negative) but they are rich or at least living like rich people. If you own $10m in assets and have $10m in debt, your wealth is 0 but I'm pretty sure you are not poor. What's the percentage of such people in society? This should make inequality even worse. Then you have a category of people who are not rich on paper but they have access to privileges (ie: government bureaucrats). As bad as inequality on these stats is, I think it's severely under-reported.

randomcarbloke 6y ago

There's nothing inherently wrong with inequality.