“Now we know why CEOs didn’t want this data released,”

[DBT]

If it was a significant percentage, it would make a difference. A hundred or a thousand is hardly a significant percentage....

So, you agree there is no difference between 8 and 100, hence metric is meaningless.
And as I explained before, wealth is not correct measure of anything anyway. You need to compare consumption, not amount of assets.

As I said, it requires a significant percentage to make a difference, not 8 or 10 or a hundred, which does not make 'metric meaningless,' just degree.
Wealth and assets are an accumulation, high income, land, houses, businesses, power, influence, the ability to organize society in a way that favours their own social and economic class at the expense of ordinary workers, thus limiting their capacity to buy and consume....

 

[barbos]

If it was a significant percentage, it would make a difference. A hundred or a thousand is hardly a significant percentage....

So, you agree there is no difference between 8 and 100, hence metric is meaningless.
And as I explained before, wealth is not correct measure of anything anyway. You need to compare consumption, not amount of assets.

As I said, it requires a significant percentage to make a difference, not 8 or 10 or a hundred, which does not make 'metric meaningless,' just degree.

So pretty meaningless.

Wealth and assets are an accumulation, high income, assets, power, influence, the ability to organize society in a way that favours your own social and economic class at the expense of ordinary workers, thus limiting their capacity to buy and consume....

This is all true, but I doubt these 8 or even 100 people rule the world. Their combined wealth is tiny fraction of the total.
I made a calculation their sum is $426.2bil, distributed over whole population that would get you $60 per person. That's really nothing. We can safely say that none of these 3.6bil people live in US, however I was one of these people once.

 

[DBT]

This is all true, but I doubt these 8 or even 100 people rule the world. Their combined wealth is tiny fraction of the total.
I made a calculation their sum is $426.2bil, distributed over whole population that would get you $60 per person. That's really nothing.

I didn't say they ruled the world. I said that they are in a position to influence policy makers to legislate in their favour, ie, so that they can pay less tax, decrease costs, wages, etc, thereby increase their already considerable wealth. Which appears to be the game being played.

 

[barbos]

This is all true, but I doubt these 8 or even 100 people rule the world. Their combined wealth is tiny fraction of the total.
I made a calculation their sum is $426.2bil, distributed over whole population that would get you $60 per person. That's really nothing.

I didn't say they ruled the world. I said that they are in a position to influence policy makers to legislate in their favour, ie, so that they can pay less tax, decrease costs, wages, etc, thereby increase their already considerable wealth. Which appears to be the game being played.

You think if you make these people pay more taxes and give that money to dirt poor it would make it better?
Dirt poor is a not a result of "theft" ultra rich allegedly perpetrate, it's a result of governmental mismanagement in countries like India.
Ultra-rich don't exist in the vacuum they need middle class to operate. And none of these 3.6bil live in developed countries like EU/US.
Now we had this discussion many times, higher wealth growth in the top is natural result of a highly technological economies, it's not a design.
Now, I agree that this is undesirable and should be alleviated. So I would start small by death taxing everything over $1bil per person.

 

[lpetrich]

The Birth of the New American Aristocracy - The Atlantic It is mostly about the upper middle class, but it touches on CEO's a bit. After noting a double standard where professional associations of highly-paid people are often considered good and labor unions bad, the author asked what if ordinary workers hired consultants and "compensation committees" drawn from their fellow workers. That's what CEO's do.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Zero-sum game

Most of the evidence and studies cited here are NOT suggesting that wealth is zero-sum. On the contrary, high levels of inequality are associated with slower growth, i.e. a smaller economic pie. Put another way, more equality would be positive sum.

In/equality here means the gap between rich and poor, not the convergence of low/median incomes between countries. The idea that median wage stagnation in developed economies is a corollary of growing median wages in developing economies is more like a zero-sum argument. An argument defenders of the super-rich are strangely fond of.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oxfam is hardly an unbiased source.

As for this crap--what they're actually looking at is cumulative net worth. That 3.6 billion includes a lot with negative net worth that pull down the total. You would get a very different result if you only counted those whose net worth was not negative.

Well, they do cite their sources and describe their methods, anyone can check if they wish. if there is something amiss with their work, it is open to questioning. It hardly matters if it is somewhat out because there are multiple studies from multiple sources to show that there is a huge problem with wealth distribution.

You're not addressing the issue. The Oxfam data basically takes the world's population and sorts it by net worth. The bottom of this list has a huge number of people with negative net worth. Anybody with a positive net worth will be ahead of a vast number of people. There are even quite a few people whose personal net worth is greater than a large range at the bottom that includes them.

- - - Updated - - -

We can safely say that none of these 3.6bil people live in US, however I was one of these people once.

We certainly can't safely say this as I have already pointed out a fair number of people in the US that fall into that 3.6 billion. Most recent college graduates (little in the way of assets, big student loans) fall into that range.

 

[Jayjay]

So basically, according to the Oxfam calculation, an American student with loads of student debt is considered poorer than someone living in abject poverty (but debt-free) in Africa.

 

[ZiprHead]

Forget about broad-based pay hikes, executives say

Why it matters: Now, executives of big U.S. companies suggest that the days of most people getting a pay raise are over, and that they also plan to reduce their work forces further.

Boy, that big tax cut for the wealthy and corporations was sure effective.

 

[DBT]

This is all true, but I doubt these 8 or even 100 people rule the world. Their combined wealth is tiny fraction of the total.
I made a calculation their sum is $426.2bil, distributed over whole population that would get you $60 per person. That's really nothing.

I didn't say they ruled the world. I said that they are in a position to influence policy makers to legislate in their favour, ie, so that they can pay less tax, decrease costs, wages, etc, thereby increase their already considerable wealth. Which appears to be the game being played.

You think if you make these people pay more taxes and give that money to dirt poor it would make it better?
Dirt poor is a not a result of "theft" ultra rich allegedly perpetrate, it's a result of governmental mismanagement in countries like India.
Ultra-rich don't exist in the vacuum they need middle class to operate. And none of these 3.6bil live in developed countries like EU/US.
Now we had this discussion many times, higher wealth growth in the top is natural result of a highly technological economies, it's not a design.
Now, I agree that this is undesirable and should be alleviated. So I would start small by death taxing everything over $1bil per person.

I made no mention of 'dirt poor' - I am just point out the gross disparity in wealth distribution between ordinary people, workers and the super rich..... and that it appears that the super rich stand to benefit the most from the rules and regulations of society and economic systems, rules and regulations that they themselves have lobbied for.

 

[DBT]

You're not addressing the issue. The Oxfam data basically takes the world's population and sorts it by net worth. The bottom of this list has a huge number of people with negative net worth. Anybody with a positive net worth will be ahead of a vast number of people. There are even quite a few people whose personal net worth is greater than a large range at the bottom that includes them.

Irrelevant. You can take any western nation you like and the wealth gap between the wealthiest families or individuals and ordinary wage earners is vast. That is the point. This situation cannot be rationalized away.

Australia for example;

''The divide between rich and poor is growing in Australia, according to a new national survey which found more than a quarter of households have experienced a drop in income.

But wealthier Australians were most likely to be getting richer.

This was the lowest rate of financial comfort recorded by the six-monthly survey since it was first conducted in October 2011.

Single parents reported the lowest levels of financial comfort.

"ABS data shows wage growth at historical lows over the past two years to the September quarter. ME's report supports this, highlighting low wage growth continued in the whole of 2016 and is causing financial discomfort for many households, exacerbated by job insecurity and underemployment,"
Households also tightened their purse strings over the six months to December, saving more where they could. They were also less likely to be overspending.

"It's an increased conservatism that will be contributing to a drag on growth as Australia's economic transition continues," Mr Oughton said.''

The relentless growth of the ultra rich in Australia

''The number of millionaires grew by 200,000 to 1.16 million in Australia over the 12 months to mid-2017, according to research by Credit Suisse.

And the number of ultra-high net worth (UHNW) individuals in Australia — those with a net worth of $US50 million ($A65.5 million) — jumped by 30% to almost 3,000, according to the latest edition the Global Wealth Report.

“No other part of the wealth pyramid has been transformed as much since 2000 as the millionaire and ultra-high net worth individual segments,” says Alex Wade, the Head of Australia, and Developed and Emerging Asia, Private Banking, Credit Suisse.''

 

[Canard DuJour]

As for this crap--what they're actually looking at is cumulative net worth. That 3.6 billion includes a lot with negative net worth that pull down the total. You would get a very different result if you only counted those whose net worth was not negative.

Not really :

In the global wealth distribution, some people we may not think of as being poor show up among the very poorest, as they are in net debt. These people may be in debt but be income-rich, thanks to well-functioning credit markets (think of the indebted Harvard graduate). A number of such cases will exist. However, in terms of population, this group is insignificant at the aggregate global level. Figure 1 shows that just 1% of people in the bottom 50% are from North America, while 70% live in low-income countries.

(...)

Across the world, the vast majority of people living in debt really are very poor; but regardless of the nature and consequences of net debt at the bottom of the global distribution, it is clear that this does not distort the overall picture of extreme wealth concentration in the global economy (see Figure 2). Even if all the net debt of this group is ignored (in effect, the negative wealth held by the bottom 10%), the positive wealth of the rest of the bottom 50% is still only $1.5 trillion. It still takes just 56 of the wealthiest individuals to equal the wealth of this group.

 

[Axulus]

You're not addressing the issue. The Oxfam data basically takes the world's population and sorts it by net worth. The bottom of this list has a huge number of people with negative net worth. Anybody with a positive net worth will be ahead of a vast number of people. There are even quite a few people whose personal net worth is greater than a large range at the bottom that includes them.

Irrelevant. You can take any western nation you like and the wealth gap between the wealthiest families or individuals and ordinary wage earners is vast. That is the point. This situation cannot be rationalized away.

Australia for example;

''The divide between rich and poor is growing in Australia, according to a new national survey which found more than a quarter of households have experienced a drop in income.

But wealthier Australians were most likely to be getting richer.

This was the lowest rate of financial comfort recorded by the six-monthly survey since it was first conducted in October 2011.

Single parents reported the lowest levels of financial comfort.

"ABS data shows wage growth at historical lows over the past two years to the September quarter. ME's report supports this, highlighting low wage growth continued in the whole of 2016 and is causing financial discomfort for many households, exacerbated by job insecurity and underemployment,"
Households also tightened their purse strings over the six months to December, saving more where they could. They were also less likely to be overspending.

"It's an increased conservatism that will be contributing to a drag on growth as Australia's economic transition continues," Mr Oughton said.''

The relentless growth of the ultra rich in Australia

''The number of millionaires grew by 200,000 to 1.16 million in Australia over the 12 months to mid-2017, according to research by Credit Suisse.

And the number of ultra-high net worth (UHNW) individuals in Australia — those with a net worth of $US50 million ($A65.5 million) — jumped by 30% to almost 3,000, according to the latest edition the Global Wealth Report.

“No other part of the wealth pyramid has been transformed as much since 2000 as the millionaire and ultra-high net worth individual segments,” says Alex Wade, the Head of Australia, and Developed and Emerging Asia, Private Banking, Credit Suisse.''

Hypothetical: if this was the cost of no recession in 27 years, would it be worth it? What society do you have in mind that has been recession free for so long but displays proper median wage growth and cheap housing?

On another note, one consequence of unmitigated economic growth and strict land use policies is sky high housing due to the presence of NIMBYs. Perhaps you should be complaining more strongly about the anti-capitalists when it comes to land use?

 

[laughing dog]

You're not addressing the issue. The Oxfam data basically takes the world's population and sorts it by net worth. The bottom of this list has a huge number of people with negative net worth. Anybody with a positive net worth will be ahead of a vast number of people. There are even quite a few people whose personal net worth is greater than a large range at the bottom that includes them.

Irrelevant. You can take any western nation you like and the wealth gap between the wealthiest families or individuals and ordinary wage earners is vast. That is the point. This situation cannot be rationalized away.

Australia for example;

''The divide between rich and poor is growing in Australia, according to a new national survey which found more than a quarter of households have experienced a drop in income.

But wealthier Australians were most likely to be getting richer.

This was the lowest rate of financial comfort recorded by the six-monthly survey since it was first conducted in October 2011.

Single parents reported the lowest levels of financial comfort.

"ABS data shows wage growth at historical lows over the past two years to the September quarter. ME's report supports this, highlighting low wage growth continued in the whole of 2016 and is causing financial discomfort for many households, exacerbated by job insecurity and underemployment,"
Households also tightened their purse strings over the six months to December, saving more where they could. They were also less likely to be overspending.

"It's an increased conservatism that will be contributing to a drag on growth as Australia's economic transition continues," Mr Oughton said.''

The relentless growth of the ultra rich in Australia

''The number of millionaires grew by 200,000 to 1.16 million in Australia over the 12 months to mid-2017, according to research by Credit Suisse.

And the number of ultra-high net worth (UHNW) individuals in Australia — those with a net worth of $US50 million ($A65.5 million) — jumped by 30% to almost 3,000, according to the latest edition the Global Wealth Report.

“No other part of the wealth pyramid has been transformed as much since 2000 as the millionaire and ultra-high net worth individual segments,” says Alex Wade, the Head of Australia, and Developed and Emerging Asia, Private Banking, Credit Suisse.''

Hypothetical: if this was the cost of no recession in 27 years, would it be worth it? What society do you have in mind that has been recession free for so long but displays proper median wage growth and cheap housing?

On another note, one consequence of unmitigated economic growth and strict land use policies is sky high housing due to the presence of NIMBYs. Perhaps you should be complaining more strongly about the anti-capitalists when it comes to land use?

I think the hypothetical premise of the observed rise in inequality was an unavoidable side effect of avoiding a recession for over 27 years is very very hypothetical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So basically, according to the Oxfam calculation, an American student with loads of student debt is considered poorer than someone living in abject poverty (but debt-free) in Africa.

Good point. I got stuck on looking at the forest and forgot this tree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for this crap--what they're actually looking at is cumulative net worth. That 3.6 billion includes a lot with negative net worth that pull down the total. You would get a very different result if you only counted those whose net worth was not negative.

Not really :

In the global wealth distribution, some people we may not think of as being poor show up among the very poorest, as they are in net debt. These people may be in debt but be income-rich, thanks to well-functioning credit markets (think of the indebted Harvard graduate). A number of such cases will exist. However, in terms of population, this group is insignificant at the aggregate global level. Figure 1 shows that just 1% of people in the bottom 50% are from North America, while 70% live in low-income countries.

(...)

Across the world, the vast majority of people living in debt really are very poor; but regardless of the nature and consequences of net debt at the bottom of the global distribution, it is clear that this does not distort the overall picture of extreme wealth concentration in the global economy (see Figure 2). Even if all the net debt of this group is ignored (in effect, the negative wealth held by the bottom 10%), the positive wealth of the rest of the bottom 50% is still only $1.5 trillion. It still takes just 56 of the wealthiest individuals to equal the wealth of this group.

Your quotes show there was a big problem with their original calculation.

 

[DBT]

You're not addressing the issue. The Oxfam data basically takes the world's population and sorts it by net worth. The bottom of this list has a huge number of people with negative net worth. Anybody with a positive net worth will be ahead of a vast number of people. There are even quite a few people whose personal net worth is greater than a large range at the bottom that includes them.

Irrelevant. You can take any western nation you like and the wealth gap between the wealthiest families or individuals and ordinary wage earners is vast. That is the point. This situation cannot be rationalized away.

Australia for example;

''The divide between rich and poor is growing in Australia, according to a new national survey which found more than a quarter of households have experienced a drop in income.

But wealthier Australians were most likely to be getting richer.

This was the lowest rate of financial comfort recorded by the six-monthly survey since it was first conducted in October 2011.

Single parents reported the lowest levels of financial comfort.

"ABS data shows wage growth at historical lows over the past two years to the September quarter. ME's report supports this, highlighting low wage growth continued in the whole of 2016 and is causing financial discomfort for many households, exacerbated by job insecurity and underemployment,"
Households also tightened their purse strings over the six months to December, saving more where they could. They were also less likely to be overspending.

"It's an increased conservatism that will be contributing to a drag on growth as Australia's economic transition continues," Mr Oughton said.''

The relentless growth of the ultra rich in Australia

''The number of millionaires grew by 200,000 to 1.16 million in Australia over the 12 months to mid-2017, according to research by Credit Suisse.

And the number of ultra-high net worth (UHNW) individuals in Australia — those with a net worth of $US50 million ($A65.5 million) — jumped by 30% to almost 3,000, according to the latest edition the Global Wealth Report.

“No other part of the wealth pyramid has been transformed as much since 2000 as the millionaire and ultra-high net worth individual segments,” says Alex Wade, the Head of Australia, and Developed and Emerging Asia, Private Banking, Credit Suisse.''

Hypothetical: if this was the cost of no recession in 27 years, would it be worth it?

Why would that be the case? Is there evidence to show that if the rich do not increase their wealth while ordinary workers languish, there must be a recession?

What about increasing economic activity when workers have extra money to spend on goods and services?

- - - Updated - - -

Not really :

Your quotes show there was a big problem with their original calculation.

How so? Can you elaborate?

 

[barbos]

What about increasing economic activity when workers have extra money to spend on goods and services?

Rich people do spend money on goods and services.
As for these 8 (or hundred) people, you keep failing to understand that they don't really have these billions. They have stock which is valued at these billions. That valuation has no basis in some tangible terms like food and other material stuff.

 

[DBT]

What about increasing economic activity when workers have extra money to spend on goods and services?

Rich people do spend money on goods and services.
As for these 8 (or hundred) people, you keep failing to understand that they don't really have these billions. They have stock which is valued at these billions. That valuation has no basis in some tangible terms like food and other material stuff.

Oh, sure, the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al, live like Paupers, ha ha....is that the sound of sad violins in the background, Barbos?

One example of this wealth inequity issue;

Unless you’re rich, the economy is not working for you

''By this point we’ve all heard about the cartoonish immorality of the GOP tax plan—raising taxes on the working poor while cutting taxes for the super-rich.

But setting aside these moral considerations, the Republican tax reform package is also a catastrophe as economic policy. As designed, it will super-charge trends that have stalled growth and wages in the United States for the last four decades. Neither the House nor the Senate plan will do anything to spur investment and both will bolster a tax code that incentivizes short-term speculation and the squeezing of workers, supply chains and consumers.

Our economy has plenty of problems, but too little cash at the top is not one of them. Tax cuts for corporations and the rich—along with a suite of policies pushed over 40 years—have shifted how, when and where corporations and individuals decide to invest, spend and save.

Today, corporations are not investing because shareholders pressure managers to deliver immediate returns and because industries are so consolidated that dominant firms don’t actually need to invest or innovate to remain competitive. Private investors are not putting their money into productive new enterprises, but rather are earning their returns from the sky-rocketing value of assets—stocks, financial products, real estate, art—that can be passed down to future generations.

What this means is that businesses have plenty of profits, but they’re not using those funds to do things that actually create jobs or grow the economy. Instead of funding new research to create better products, expanding operations to boost jobs or increasing wages, these businesses are instead choosing to give money to shareholders—a practice that benefits short-term investors but not the workers who make the company run. A massive tax cut to corporate profits will increase that pool of available money, while also increasing the returns to short-term investors now tempted by an even bigger potential payout.

When not rewarding shareholders directly, businesses have been busy buying up other firms. By providing companies more cash on hand, the GOP tax bill would likely mean even more mergers, which frequently result in cuts to jobs, the erection of barriers for small business and the curbing of consumer benefits. Activist investors will have greater incentive to push for such mergers as the super-rich see a chance to pass un-taxed estates on to the next generation.''

 

[barbos]

What about increasing economic activity when workers have extra money to spend on goods and services?

Rich people do spend money on goods and services.
As for these 8 (or hundred) people, you keep failing to understand that they don't really have these billions. They have stock which is valued at these billions. That valuation has no basis in some tangible terms like food and other material stuff.

Oh, sure, the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al, live like Paupers, ha ha....is that the sound of sad violins in the background, Barbos?

I am not sure I follow "sad violin" remark.

One example of this wealth inequity issue;

Unless you’re rich, the economy is not working for you

I have seen millions of such articles, they are all alike and mostly wrong
You are not addressing the issue here. Economy today can not be compared to the one 100 or even 30 years ago. You just can't do it, yet you keep doing it.