4 ms·

Who said it was unfair? He just said they're rich, which they are by most standards. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

varelse 12y ago
Let's try this another way: The entire national household wealth of the United States is 83.7 trillion dollars this year, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth This makes us the richest nation on the planet. There are 117.5 million households in the United States, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_... That's roughly $712,340 per household. I am happy to consider anyone with that or more household wealth as rich. And anyone with that plus 2 sigma as filthy rich. Instead, what we have is all the wealth concentrated at the very top, and it gets worse and worse every year. I am in no way suggesting any form of wealth redistribution here, but it's hard for me to consider some poor sap making borderline 6 figures in SF with less than $100K life savings "filthy rich." Sure, by 3rd world standards they're loaded, but what does that say about the 0.01% and up?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- irremediable 12y ago
  I can see your point, but: a) You did seem to conflate wealth with unfairness. b) I'm unsure that a simple mean is the best criterion. The median household income is about $50,000, for example. If an individual earns about $150,000, they're in the top decile of the US. I think being in the top decile is also pretty rich. c) If an SF developer is earning $100k, it's not even that fair to compare it to household income distribution. If they don't have a family, they don't need to support children -- unlike many households with lower income. If they do have a family, it's reasonably likely they have a high-earning partner who'll boost their household income even higher. Rich people tend to marry rich people. (I used household income rather than household wealth here, which is a weakness compared to what you wrote. But you get the idea...)

varelse 12y ago

Let's try this another way: The entire national household wealth of the United States is 83.7 trillion dollars this year, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth This makes us the richest nation on the planet. There are 117.5 million households in the United States, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_... That's roughly $712,340 per household. I am happy to consider anyone with that or more household wealth as rich. And anyone with that plus 2 sigma as filthy rich. Instead, what we have is all the wealth concentrated at the very top, and it gets worse and worse every year. I am in no way suggesting any form of wealth redistribution here, but it's hard for me to consider some poor sap making borderline 6 figures in SF with less than $100K life savings "filthy rich." Sure, by 3rd world standards they're loaded, but what does that say about the 0.01% and up?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
irremediable 12y ago
I can see your point, but: a) You did seem to conflate wealth with unfairness. b) I'm unsure that a simple mean is the best criterion. The median household income is about $50,000, for example. If an individual earns about $150,000, they're in the top decile of the US. I think being in the top decile is also pretty rich. c) If an SF developer is earning $100k, it's not even that fair to compare it to household income distribution. If they don't have a family, they don't need to support children -- unlike many households with lower income. If they do have a family, it's reasonably likely they have a high-earning partner who'll boost their household income even higher. Rich people tend to marry rich people. (I used household income rather than household wealth here, which is a weakness compared to what you wrote. But you get the idea...)