7 ms·

And yet they only have 24 hours in the day to live their life like everybody else. I only envy people's wealth up to a point, after which having more money does

And yet they only have 24 hours in the day to live their life like everybody else. I only envy people's wealth up to a point, after which having more money doesn't really do a whole lot for you because enjoyment of that wealth just doesn't scale. And if everybody's wealth is increasing worldwide, what good does it do us to point out that it's increasing faster for some than others? After all, their wealth is increasing faster because their risking it in the stock market, which drives the growth of the economy. Doesn't bother me in the least.

dylangs1030 13y ago
The article wasn't deriding wealth in tune with the usual tone of that headline. But you're right, it shouldn't bother you. Friends of mine react with disgust that someone can make $200k or much, much more as a programmer, consultant, startup entrepreneur (particularly in the last case). "Who needs all that money? What are you going to do with it all?" These are typically people who wouldn't mind having that much money either. It doesn't matter what's done with it all. Successful people drive the economy. It's the opposite, being miserly with money, that's bad for the economy.
- marknutter 13y ago
  It's hard to see headlines like this and not think it's deriding the wealthy. It could have been put in a much more innocuous way, like "99% of the world's population controls 61% of the world's wealth". That just doesn't seem to have the same punch, though.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    No, it doesn't, because 99 people in a room controlling 61 pieces of a pie aren't as influential as 1 man controlling 39 pieces of pie. He has very real, formidable power. The least influential of the 99 will dislike that. They all have to share their 61 pieces - in practice, a significant fraction have no pieces of pie. Analogy aside, the way this model of wealth plays out is that the 1% are typically the only outlier, and the other 99% don't all control the remaining wealth in the same way - they don't have a disproportionate amount to their own percentile, or a number larger than themselves. But disproportionate amounts of money is potentially good - think of what billionaires can do if they are so inclined.

dylangs1030 13y ago

The article wasn't deriding wealth in tune with the usual tone of that headline. But you're right, it shouldn't bother you. Friends of mine react with disgust that someone can make $200k or much, much more as a programmer, consultant, startup entrepreneur (particularly in the last case). "Who needs all that money? What are you going to do with it all?" These are typically people who wouldn't mind having that much money either. It doesn't matter what's done with it all. Successful people drive the economy. It's the opposite, being miserly with money, that's bad for the economy.

marknutter 13y ago
It's hard to see headlines like this and not think it's deriding the wealthy. It could have been put in a much more innocuous way, like "99% of the world's population controls 61% of the world's wealth". That just doesn't seem to have the same punch, though.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  No, it doesn't, because 99 people in a room controlling 61 pieces of a pie aren't as influential as 1 man controlling 39 pieces of pie. He has very real, formidable power. The least influential of the 99 will dislike that. They all have to share their 61 pieces - in practice, a significant fraction have no pieces of pie. Analogy aside, the way this model of wealth plays out is that the 1% are typically the only outlier, and the other 99% don't all control the remaining wealth in the same way - they don't have a disproportionate amount to their own percentile, or a number larger than themselves. But disproportionate amounts of money is potentially good - think of what billionaires can do if they are so inclined.