6 ms·

Inequality is off the charts in western civilization. There is a bigger wealth divide now then in the times of the robber Barons of oil and train. Using the t

Inequality is off the charts in western civilization. There is a bigger wealth divide now then in the times of the robber Barons of oil and train. Using the the top 10 percent of incomes is meaningless….because the divide here is astronomical. It is really the the top 1 percent of earners (and honestly a fraction of that) that hold all the wealth. The ultra elite wealthy like to hide in groups like the top ten percent to avoid being signaled out for just how much obscene wealth they control. The way wealth is controlled, printed, shifted by policies and large banking institutions we are living in almost a modern feudal like system.

balderdash 3y ago
There is a correlation between income and wealth. But it’s far from perfect. When you factor in things like inheritance (e.g. inherit a median home in CA that’s fully paid off from your parents, that’s worth $600k - it takes a really long time earning $100k/yr to save that much!) there are lots of low to middle income earners that have more wealth than some higher income earners.
- hiddencost 3y ago
  When you inherit $100M in property that comes with fairly large income streams. A $600k house barely registers in the wealth / inequality spectrum the parent is talking about.
  - balderdash 3y ago
    You’re missing my point - the imputed rent on a $600k home is like $4k/mo ($48k/year) or ~$60k pre tax. Who would you rather be someone making making $40k/yr with a $600k home free and clear, or someone making $80k/yr? You don’t need to talk about the super rich to see that the median California home dramatically changes the “income” distribution
- scarmig 3y ago
  Wage income is nearly irrelevant in understanding wealth inequality. It's easy for the working class (which we are!) to see someone else working and making $10M a year and to think, wow, that's where inequality comes from! But that's a rounding error when it comes to wealth inequality. It's capital formation driving it. A wage income in the top 0.01% is extraordinarily well-off, but it would never put you in the top 0.01% of wealth.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    Isn’t getting “put” in the top 0.01 wealth essentially just winning the capitalism lottery by betting all your labor and assets on a single venture and having it skyrocket? There was an interesting blog post that said if the early janitors of Amazon took their wages in stock and held it they’d be hundred millionaires. In one sense the mega rich are way overvalued, but in another they “just” played a game we all typically agree too and they wagered harder than most think is sane and got lucky.
    - scarmig 3y ago
      Hard work, intelligence, and preexisting resources are typically prerequisites, and then a whole lot of luck comes into play. I suspect taking their wages in stock wasn't an option actually offered to janitors, and even if it had been, they wouldn't have taken it: unmarketable equity doesn't put a roof over your head or put food on the table. Bezos, on the other hand, could afford to take below market compensation (at least liquidity-wise) because he had a pile of money already from his time in finance.
      - therealdrag0 3y ago
        Totally agree. It’s just an analogy to illustrate the gamboling nature of getting rich and how the starting conditions are more widely available than many people think, it’s just start to finish is very risky low chance of success. For example, as an average well paid engineer, I could afford to gamble with a lot of money and my company even offers reduced pay for extra stock plans but I don’t take it and I sell every RSU I get the moment it vests. And that choice means I’ll never get rich off the stock.
rcarr 3y ago
Going to repost his from a couple of days ago: Back in the feudalism days the ruling classes typically took between a third and a half of what the serfs produced[2] which is what is happening now as rents are taking over 30% of take home pay in many areas of the country. > This means that 37% of the average single person's salary now goes on rent, though this proportion is even higher in London: a staggering 52%.[3] Considering there’s all the other taxes like council tax, income tax, vat and whatever else, the average worker is most likely paying the same amount (or possibly more) to the ruling classes that they did in medieval times. It's not "almost" modern feudal like system. It is. No other way of looking at it. [2]https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/feudalism.html https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/feudalism.html [3]https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/single-person-salary-rent-percentage https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/single-person-salary-rent-p...
- gruez 3y ago
  >Back in the feudalism days the ruling classes typically took between a third and a half of what the serfs produced[2] which is what is happening now as rents are taking over 30% of take home pay in many areas of the country. Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. >Considering there’s all the other taxes like council tax, income tax, vat and whatever else, All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't. edit: ...that serfs didn't get
  - rcarr 3y ago
    > Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. That's what the third to a half of what they produced paid for, the right to live and work on the lord's land. > All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't No, but what "welfare state" did exist, such as transport infrastructure, was paid for by the lord, rather than directly by the peasant.
    - gruez 3y ago
afpx 3y ago
Policies probably won't work much. It's easy for the wealthy to just move their money elsewhere.
frontman1988 3y ago
Not just western civilization, everywhere inequality is off the charts. It's particularly haunting in developing countries like in India's Mumbai I saw homeless families with small kids sleeping on the railway station floor while some dudes were racing their lambos just across the road.
specialist 3y ago
> Using the the top 10 percent of incomes is meaningless... Similarly, as the OC notes, quintiles aren't useful either. The genius of coining "We are the 99%" was to better draw the distinction. I'm struggling to think of possible labels and differentiators. To better inform both discourse and policy making. Maybe something based on log-log scales? Thoughts?

balderdash 3y ago

There is a correlation between income and wealth. But it’s far from perfect. When you factor in things like inheritance (e.g. inherit a median home in CA that’s fully paid off from your parents, that’s worth $600k - it takes a really long time earning $100k/yr to save that much!) there are lots of low to middle income earners that have more wealth than some higher income earners.

hiddencost 3y ago
When you inherit $100M in property that comes with fairly large income streams. A $600k house barely registers in the wealth / inequality spectrum the parent is talking about.
- balderdash 3y ago
  You’re missing my point - the imputed rent on a $600k home is like $4k/mo ($48k/year) or ~$60k pre tax. Who would you rather be someone making making $40k/yr with a $600k home free and clear, or someone making $80k/yr? You don’t need to talk about the super rich to see that the median California home dramatically changes the “income” distribution
scarmig 3y ago
Wage income is nearly irrelevant in understanding wealth inequality. It's easy for the working class (which we are!) to see someone else working and making $10M a year and to think, wow, that's where inequality comes from! But that's a rounding error when it comes to wealth inequality. It's capital formation driving it. A wage income in the top 0.01% is extraordinarily well-off, but it would never put you in the top 0.01% of wealth.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  Isn’t getting “put” in the top 0.01 wealth essentially just winning the capitalism lottery by betting all your labor and assets on a single venture and having it skyrocket? There was an interesting blog post that said if the early janitors of Amazon took their wages in stock and held it they’d be hundred millionaires. In one sense the mega rich are way overvalued, but in another they “just” played a game we all typically agree too and they wagered harder than most think is sane and got lucky.
  - scarmig 3y ago
    Hard work, intelligence, and preexisting resources are typically prerequisites, and then a whole lot of luck comes into play. I suspect taking their wages in stock wasn't an option actually offered to janitors, and even if it had been, they wouldn't have taken it: unmarketable equity doesn't put a roof over your head or put food on the table. Bezos, on the other hand, could afford to take below market compensation (at least liquidity-wise) because he had a pile of money already from his time in finance.
    - therealdrag0 3y ago
      Totally agree. It’s just an analogy to illustrate the gamboling nature of getting rich and how the starting conditions are more widely available than many people think, it’s just start to finish is very risky low chance of success. For example, as an average well paid engineer, I could afford to gamble with a lot of money and my company even offers reduced pay for extra stock plans but I don’t take it and I sell every RSU I get the moment it vests. And that choice means I’ll never get rich off the stock.

rcarr 3y ago

Going to repost his from a couple of days ago: Back in the feudalism days the ruling classes typically took between a third and a half of what the serfs produced[2] which is what is happening now as rents are taking over 30% of take home pay in many areas of the country. > This means that 37% of the average single person's salary now goes on rent, though this proportion is even higher in London: a staggering 52%.[3] Considering there’s all the other taxes like council tax, income tax, vat and whatever else, the average worker is most likely paying the same amount (or possibly more) to the ruling classes that they did in medieval times. It's not "almost" modern feudal like system. It is. No other way of looking at it. [2]https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/feudalism.html https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/feudalism.html [3]https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/single-person-salary-rent-percentage https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/single-person-salary-rent-p...

gruez 3y ago
>Back in the feudalism days the ruling classes typically took between a third and a half of what the serfs produced[2] which is what is happening now as rents are taking over 30% of take home pay in many areas of the country. Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. >Considering there’s all the other taxes like council tax, income tax, vat and whatever else, All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't. edit: ...that serfs didn't get
- rcarr 3y ago
  > Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. That's what the third to a half of what they produced paid for, the right to live and work on the lord's land. > All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't No, but what "welfare state" did exist, such as transport infrastructure, was paid for by the lord, rather than directly by the peasant.
  - gruez 3y ago

afpx 3y ago

Policies probably won't work much. It's easy for the wealthy to just move their money elsewhere.

frontman1988 3y ago

Not just western civilization, everywhere inequality is off the charts. It's particularly haunting in developing countries like in India's Mumbai I saw homeless families with small kids sleeping on the railway station floor while some dudes were racing their lambos just across the road.

specialist 3y ago

> Using the the top 10 percent of incomes is meaningless... Similarly, as the OC notes, quintiles aren't useful either. The genius of coining "We are the 99%" was to better draw the distinction. I'm struggling to think of possible labels and differentiators. To better inform both discourse and policy making. Maybe something based on log-log scales? Thoughts?