6 ms·

It’s not zero sum but that doesn’t mean the very wealthy aren’t taking substantial more of the pie’s growth as its grows, if not nearly all of it.

monero-xmr 1y ago
All that matters is what you can purchase and what lifestyle you can afford. Despite living in supposed Dickensian-levels of inequality there is no better time in world history to be alive, by a long shot, and our poorest have it better than ever before
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  That's not all that matters, although it is important. Excessive concentration of wealth has destructive consequences.
  - pj_mukh 1y ago
    "destructive consequences." In the context of just Silicon Valley, what are they?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      Did you just come out of a coma? The destructive and unchecked accumulation of wealth in SV is what allowed the creation of monstrosities such as the gig economy and massive surveillance. At the present moment in time it even allowed some tech oligarchs to directly influence elections in their favor, gaining access direct access to the high levels of government to have nugde government actions inntheir favor, curb regulatory interference that might put checks in their companies, etc. I am presuming younasked from a position of ignorance rather than finding all this desirable somehow.
      - pj_mukh 1y ago
        When I said "in the context of Silicon Valley", I meant the geographical region not "what are the bad things tech has done". Most SV politicos that drive living conditions in the valley don't take PAC money and aren't affected by Billionaires. There's a housing shortage and a cost of living crisis anyway (example: no matter how much you pay gig economy workers, they are not going to afford a home in the valley). The issues you mentioned are because of Citizens United - a federal issue w/ consequences all over the country (not just SV).
  - billy99k 1y ago
    So the answer is to concentrate the wealth from these few to the governemnt?
    - bigbadfeline 1y ago
      A distinction without a difference. You don't seem to understand that moving something from point A to point A changes nothing.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      The answer is to redistribute the excessive wealth to the population, be it theough improvements in public infrastructure, be it through providing better and cheaper access to things such as healthcare and education, be it through more direct direct means (e.g.: welfare). Yes, this is done through the government. While the government as an institution should be scrutinized and not necessarily get blind faith, it at least has the pretense of looking after the needs of the population.
- happytoexplain 1y ago
  Apples and oranges. Suffering now is not the same as suffering then - that doesn't mean it's not suffering. This is the same dishonest line of reasoning as "there are children starving in Africa". That doesn't give the wealthy the right to take food from my children for themselves (indirectly speaking). But you know that. The point is not to make an honest argument, but to oppress. I'm desperate for us to evolve past the point of making these immoral arguments against innocent people, pushing and pushing and pushing until something catastrophically breaks.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    The capitalist system has brought all of humanity higher than ever dreamed of by the wealthiest kings in centuries past. People objectively live in more comfort with better health than ever before. Philosophically, if someone gains their wealth from people voluntarily giving them money in the free market, this is the most noble possible way to earn a fortune there is, as they earned it by providing something other people wanted. The most despicable wealthy are those that earned it via government coercion - they literally robbed their fellow citizens
    - TFYS 1y ago
      > Philosophically, if someone gains their wealth from people voluntarily giving them money in the free market, this is the most noble possible way to earn a fortune there is People can be manipulated so that they give you money "voluntarily", but I wouldn't call that noble. Probably trillions of dollars are spent trying to manipulate people in various ways to try to convince them to give their money to the wealthy. Some of the most brilliant minds of humanity are working on how to use human psychology and technology to get people to do what they want. When an individual is up against that, I wouldn't call it entirely voluntary. > The capitalist system has brought all of humanity higher than ever dreamed of by the wealthiest kings in centuries past. All of humanity? No, millions still die of hunger. That's because their needs are invisible in a capitalist system, while the wants of those with wealth get the attention of everyone.
      - 1y ago
- RickJWagner 1y ago
  Everything you’ve said is true, of course. I’d rather live in a conclave of billionaires, under my current standard of living, than be the richest man in the country living under the standards of 40 years ago.
  - TFYS 1y ago
    How far would you be willing to take this? Would it still be fine to you if those billionaires became trillionaires? Would it still be fine if those people had the wealth and technology to live forever and travel the stars, while you're still living with your current standard of living? Would it be ok when your life to those wealthy people looks the same as the life of a rat does to you?
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      The argument is even more compelling if you keep going: Should we allow septillionaires? Someone with $1e24 could give $1 trillion to every person on the planet every year for 100 years and still have 99.99% of his money left. How much power and influence over the world would these people have, while the rest have comparatively close to zero? I think we all agree that wouldn't work for a functioning society.
    - RickJWagner 1y ago
      I’d be fine with trillionaires. How rich somebody else is doesn’t bother me. Now, if they could live forever with that wealth, I’d probably change my mind. But that’s just fiction. Rich people die, some of them younger than I am.
silisili 1y ago
One rather sobering thing is to search both mean and median net worth for your age. For mine, mean is over 4x the median. You'd expect some divergence, but not nearly that much.

monero-xmr 1y ago

All that matters is what you can purchase and what lifestyle you can afford. Despite living in supposed Dickensian-levels of inequality there is no better time in world history to be alive, by a long shot, and our poorest have it better than ever before

surgical_fire 1y ago
That's not all that matters, although it is important. Excessive concentration of wealth has destructive consequences.
- pj_mukh 1y ago
  "destructive consequences." In the context of just Silicon Valley, what are they?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    Did you just come out of a coma? The destructive and unchecked accumulation of wealth in SV is what allowed the creation of monstrosities such as the gig economy and massive surveillance. At the present moment in time it even allowed some tech oligarchs to directly influence elections in their favor, gaining access direct access to the high levels of government to have nugde government actions inntheir favor, curb regulatory interference that might put checks in their companies, etc. I am presuming younasked from a position of ignorance rather than finding all this desirable somehow.
    - pj_mukh 1y ago
      When I said "in the context of Silicon Valley", I meant the geographical region not "what are the bad things tech has done". Most SV politicos that drive living conditions in the valley don't take PAC money and aren't affected by Billionaires. There's a housing shortage and a cost of living crisis anyway (example: no matter how much you pay gig economy workers, they are not going to afford a home in the valley). The issues you mentioned are because of Citizens United - a federal issue w/ consequences all over the country (not just SV).
- billy99k 1y ago
  So the answer is to concentrate the wealth from these few to the governemnt?
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    A distinction without a difference. You don't seem to understand that moving something from point A to point A changes nothing.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    The answer is to redistribute the excessive wealth to the population, be it theough improvements in public infrastructure, be it through providing better and cheaper access to things such as healthcare and education, be it through more direct direct means (e.g.: welfare). Yes, this is done through the government. While the government as an institution should be scrutinized and not necessarily get blind faith, it at least has the pretense of looking after the needs of the population.
happytoexplain 1y ago
Apples and oranges. Suffering now is not the same as suffering then - that doesn't mean it's not suffering. This is the same dishonest line of reasoning as "there are children starving in Africa". That doesn't give the wealthy the right to take food from my children for themselves (indirectly speaking). But you know that. The point is not to make an honest argument, but to oppress. I'm desperate for us to evolve past the point of making these immoral arguments against innocent people, pushing and pushing and pushing until something catastrophically breaks.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  The capitalist system has brought all of humanity higher than ever dreamed of by the wealthiest kings in centuries past. People objectively live in more comfort with better health than ever before. Philosophically, if someone gains their wealth from people voluntarily giving them money in the free market, this is the most noble possible way to earn a fortune there is, as they earned it by providing something other people wanted. The most despicable wealthy are those that earned it via government coercion - they literally robbed their fellow citizens
  - TFYS 1y ago
    > Philosophically, if someone gains their wealth from people voluntarily giving them money in the free market, this is the most noble possible way to earn a fortune there is People can be manipulated so that they give you money "voluntarily", but I wouldn't call that noble. Probably trillions of dollars are spent trying to manipulate people in various ways to try to convince them to give their money to the wealthy. Some of the most brilliant minds of humanity are working on how to use human psychology and technology to get people to do what they want. When an individual is up against that, I wouldn't call it entirely voluntary. > The capitalist system has brought all of humanity higher than ever dreamed of by the wealthiest kings in centuries past. All of humanity? No, millions still die of hunger. That's because their needs are invisible in a capitalist system, while the wants of those with wealth get the attention of everyone.
    - 1y ago
RickJWagner 1y ago
Everything you’ve said is true, of course. I’d rather live in a conclave of billionaires, under my current standard of living, than be the richest man in the country living under the standards of 40 years ago.
- TFYS 1y ago
  How far would you be willing to take this? Would it still be fine to you if those billionaires became trillionaires? Would it still be fine if those people had the wealth and technology to live forever and travel the stars, while you're still living with your current standard of living? Would it be ok when your life to those wealthy people looks the same as the life of a rat does to you?
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    The argument is even more compelling if you keep going: Should we allow septillionaires? Someone with $1e24 could give $1 trillion to every person on the planet every year for 100 years and still have 99.99% of his money left. How much power and influence over the world would these people have, while the rest have comparatively close to zero? I think we all agree that wouldn't work for a functioning society.
  - RickJWagner 1y ago
    I’d be fine with trillionaires. How rich somebody else is doesn’t bother me. Now, if they could live forever with that wealth, I’d probably change my mind. But that’s just fiction. Rich people die, some of them younger than I am.

silisili 1y ago

One rather sobering thing is to search both mean and median net worth for your age. For mine, mean is over 4x the median. You'd expect some divergence, but not nearly that much.