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

[barbos]

Completely irrelevant.

It is the sheer disparity and scale of wealth in the hands of a few in comparison to the rest of the population, both on nation and world scale, that is the problem.

Data does not show any of that.

It is a problem right here and now, with no comparison to the past necessary.

Yet you felt compelled to show such comparison, which does not however show that.

As the figures show, in some ways it was marginally better in the recent past (western economies), the ratio between average CEO income and those below was not as great 30 years ago as it is now...which is the subject of this thread,

Average top 500 CEO, not average CEO.

So your objection fails in this regard.

No it does not, your comparison is still irrelevant.

The figures deal with distribution of wealth in society and the incomes of those at the top as compared with the rest of society, so student loans and possible future incomes for some are irrelevant to current distribution of wealth and the trend in which it is heading.

Yeah, you invented the metric which suits your conclusion.

It does not appear to be improving significantly.

It's nos supposed to, it was designed that way.

The super rich are not going away. Wealth distribution does not appear to be improving significantly in the short term and unlikely to in the long term unless drastic measures are implemented.

Your objection does not resolve the issue.

There is no issue.

3. You know who had no wealth disparity? Stone age people. The mere fact of wealth disparity increase is an indication of highly developed technological society.

Nobody is claiming that we should all enjoy equal pay and conditions. The problem is the growing divide between those at the top and the rest of society.

Actually if we use proper metric which is consumption and quality of life then divide is decreasing,

4. The fact is, ordinary people today are vastly better off today than 50 years ago. Some may feel differently but that does not mean that they actually worse. Young people did not live 50 years ago, and old people feel bad because they are old

Sure, generally we are all better off....but this doesn't alter the situation where those at the top get ever richer while the incomes off ordinary wage earners stagnate or decline in purchasing power.

You contradict yourself. you can't be both better and stagnate/decline.

That is the problem you ignore. That is the problem you fail to address. That is the picture that the studies and stats portray, of which I have already provided numerous examples both in Australia and other countries.

No, it's who ignores simple established fact that all these studies are trying to justify their politically motivated conclusion by means of inventing ridiculous metrics.

 

[DBT]

Data does not show any of that.

Yet you felt compelled to show such comparison, which does not however show that.

A huge divide between wealth and income between those at the top and the rest of us is exactly what various studies and stats show;

Quote;
''More wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich, with the gap between Australia’s highest paid and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over the past 20 years.

A new report by Oxfam Australia released today highlights how the share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the top one per cent of Australians grew to 23 per cent last year, up from 22 per cent in 2016.

The top one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined.

“Wealth inequality in Australia has been on the rise over the past two decades, with the gulf between the amount of wealth held by the top 1 per cent and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over this period,’’ the report says.

Oxfam Australia said the findings highlighted “a broken economic system that is concentrating ever more wealth into the hands of the rich and powerful, while ordinary working people are not always able to scrape by”.

“This is fuelling an inequality crisis all around the world, where people are finding it harder to lift themselves out of poverty and the divide between the rich and the poor is continuing to grow, including in Australia,’’ it said.''

Credit Suisse report
''Global inequality is growing, with half the world’s wealth now in the hands of just 1% of the population, according to a new report.

The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich, according to research by Credit Suisse, which also finds that for the first time, there are more individuals in the middle classes in China – 109m – than the 92m in the US.

Tidjane Thiam, the chief executive of Credit Suisse, said: “Middle class wealth has grown at a slower pace than wealth at the top end. This has reversed the pre-crisis trend which saw the share of middle-class wealth remaining fairly stable over time.”

Average top 500 CEO, not average CEO.

Both. The problem is, as mentioned before, twofold .

Firstly, the top earners, though only a small percentage, command exorbitant salary and bonus packages.

Secondly, management salaries in general have increased while ordinary wages have stagnated over the past few decades.

It is partly this situation that is concentrating wealth at the top of our social and economic systems.


The growth gap

Australians’ wages are stubbornly stagnant, but it’s a quite different story for CEOs.

Over the past couple of years, CEO remuneration has climbed 46 per cent more, year on year, than average Australian incomes.

Mr Liveris believes corporations need to align increases in executive remuneration to Australia’s Wage Price Index, in an effort to win back trust in the country’s biggest businesses.''

 

[Axulus]

Data does not show any of that.

Yet you felt compelled to show such comparison, which does not however show that.

A huge divide between wealth and income between those at the top and the rest of us is exactly what various studies and stats show;

Quote;
''More wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich, with the gap between Australia’s highest paid and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over the past 20 years.

A new report by Oxfam Australia released today highlights how the share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the top one per cent of Australians grew to 23 per cent last year, up from 22 per cent in 2016.

The top one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined.

“Wealth inequality in Australia has been on the rise over the past two decades, with the gulf between the amount of wealth held by the top 1 per cent and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over this period,’’ the report says.

Oxfam Australia said the findings highlighted “a broken economic system that is concentrating ever more wealth into the hands of the rich and powerful, while ordinary working people are not always able to scrape by”.

“This is fuelling an inequality crisis all around the world, where people are finding it harder to lift themselves out of poverty and the divide between the rich and the poor is continuing to grow, including in Australia,’’ it said.''

Credit Suisse report
''Global inequality is growing, with half the world’s wealth now in the hands of just 1% of the population, according to a new report.

The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich, according to research by Credit Suisse, which also finds that for the first time, there are more individuals in the middle classes in China – 109m – than the 92m in the US.

Tidjane Thiam, the chief executive of Credit Suisse, said: “Middle class wealth has grown at a slower pace than wealth at the top end. This has reversed the pre-crisis trend which saw the share of middle-class wealth remaining fairly stable over time.”

Average top 500 CEO, not average CEO.

Both. The problem is, as mentioned before, twofold .

Firstly, the top earners, though only a small percentage, command exorbitant salary and bonus packages.

Secondly, management salaries in general have increased while ordinary wages have stagnated over the past few decades.

It is partly this situation that is concentrating wealth at the top of our social and economic systems.


The growth gap

Australians’ wages are stubbornly stagnant, but it’s a quite different story for CEOs.

Over the past couple of years, CEO remuneration has climbed 46 per cent more, year on year, than average Australian incomes.

Mr Liveris believes corporations need to align increases in executive remuneration to Australia’s Wage Price Index, in an effort to win back trust in the country’s biggest businesses.''

How much of that wealth gap is due to stocks in companies? How does someone willing to bid a higher price on shares in companies do anything to squeeze the middle class or make someone else unhappy? As has been stated to you previously, consumption inequality is far more important of a metric to look at. If someone has wealth on paper but never spends much of it on consumption, that does not hurt society.

The reason why I brought up the no recession in 29 years stat earlier is because recessions are the surest way to reduce wealth inequality as the stock market takes a dive, while long periods of uninterrupted economic growth are going to lead to stock and real estate prices rising. The government is largely to blame for the extent of the real estate prices as they would drop dramatically if they let anyone build new housing anywhere and removed all height restrictions amd parking requirements. It's largely why Dallas is less than 15% the cost of housing compared with San Fransisco for a comparable unit. That will help reduce wealth inequality as well.

 

[DBT]

A huge divide between wealth and income between those at the top and the rest of us is exactly what various studies and stats show;

Quote;
''More wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich, with the gap between Australia’s highest paid and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over the past 20 years.

A new report by Oxfam Australia released today highlights how the share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the top one per cent of Australians grew to 23 per cent last year, up from 22 per cent in 2016.

The top one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined.

“Wealth inequality in Australia has been on the rise over the past two decades, with the gulf between the amount of wealth held by the top 1 per cent and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over this period,’’ the report says.

Oxfam Australia said the findings highlighted “a broken economic system that is concentrating ever more wealth into the hands of the rich and powerful, while ordinary working people are not always able to scrape by”.

“This is fuelling an inequality crisis all around the world, where people are finding it harder to lift themselves out of poverty and the divide between the rich and the poor is continuing to grow, including in Australia,’’ it said.''

Credit Suisse report
''Global inequality is growing, with half the world’s wealth now in the hands of just 1% of the population, according to a new report.

The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich, according to research by Credit Suisse, which also finds that for the first time, there are more individuals in the middle classes in China – 109m – than the 92m in the US.

Tidjane Thiam, the chief executive of Credit Suisse, said: “Middle class wealth has grown at a slower pace than wealth at the top end. This has reversed the pre-crisis trend which saw the share of middle-class wealth remaining fairly stable over time.”



Both. The problem is, as mentioned before, twofold .

Firstly, the top earners, though only a small percentage, command exorbitant salary and bonus packages.

Secondly, management salaries in general have increased while ordinary wages have stagnated over the past few decades.

It is partly this situation that is concentrating wealth at the top of our social and economic systems.


The growth gap

Australians’ wages are stubbornly stagnant, but it’s a quite different story for CEOs.

Over the past couple of years, CEO remuneration has climbed 46 per cent more, year on year, than average Australian incomes.

Mr Liveris believes corporations need to align increases in executive remuneration to Australia’s Wage Price Index, in an effort to win back trust in the country’s biggest businesses.''

How much of that wealth gap is due to stocks in companies? How does someone willing to bid a higher price on shares in companies do anything to squeeze the middle class or make someone else unhappy? As has been stated to you previously, consumption inequality is far more important of a metric to look at. If someone has wealth on paper but never spends much of it on consumption, that does not hurt society.

The reason why I brought up the no recession in 29 years stat earlier is because recessions are the surest way to reduce wealth inequality as the stock market takes a dive, while long periods of uninterrupted economic growth are going to lead to stock and real estate prices rising. The government is largely to blame for the extent of the real estate prices as they would drop dramatically if they let anyone build new housing anywhere and removed all height restrictions amd parking requirements. It's largely why Dallas is less than 15% the cost of housing compared with San Fransisco for a comparable unit. That will help reduce wealth inequality as well.

What does it matter what it is due to? The divide is clearly. Undeniable, there is evidence from multiple sources to support the reality of this division in wealth distribution.

If someone is a large stockholder with little cash, modest income, living in an average house, they may be said to be wealthy 'on paper' but nevertheless they are wealthy, stocks can be sold, the money used for any purpose, buy a mansion, retire, travel, acquiring luxury goods....

As for happiness, that is another issue.

 

[barbos]

A huge divide between wealth and income between those at the top and the rest of us is exactly what various studies and stats show;

Quote;
''More wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich, with the gap between Australia’s highest paid and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over the past 20 years.

A new report by Oxfam Australia released today highlights how the share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the top one per cent of Australians grew to 23 per cent last year, up from 22 per cent in 2016.

The top one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined.

“Wealth inequality in Australia has been on the rise over the past two decades, with the gulf between the amount of wealth held by the top 1 per cent and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over this period,’’ the report says.

Oxfam Australia said the findings highlighted “a broken economic system that is concentrating ever more wealth into the hands of the rich and powerful, while ordinary working people are not always able to scrape by”.

“This is fuelling an inequality crisis all around the world, where people are finding it harder to lift themselves out of poverty and the divide between the rich and the poor is continuing to grow, including in Australia,’’ it said.''

Credit Suisse report
''Global inequality is growing, with half the world’s wealth now in the hands of just 1% of the population, according to a new report.

The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich, according to research by Credit Suisse, which also finds that for the first time, there are more individuals in the middle classes in China – 109m – than the 92m in the US.

Tidjane Thiam, the chief executive of Credit Suisse, said: “Middle class wealth has grown at a slower pace than wealth at the top end. This has reversed the pre-crisis trend which saw the share of middle-class wealth remaining fairly stable over time.”



Both. The problem is, as mentioned before, twofold .

Firstly, the top earners, though only a small percentage, command exorbitant salary and bonus packages.

Secondly, management salaries in general have increased while ordinary wages have stagnated over the past few decades.

It is partly this situation that is concentrating wealth at the top of our social and economic systems.


The growth gap

Australians’ wages are stubbornly stagnant, but it’s a quite different story for CEOs.

Over the past couple of years, CEO remuneration has climbed 46 per cent more, year on year, than average Australian incomes.

Mr Liveris believes corporations need to align increases in executive remuneration to Australia’s Wage Price Index, in an effort to win back trust in the country’s biggest businesses.''

How much of that wealth gap is due to stocks in companies? How does someone willing to bid a higher price on shares in companies do anything to squeeze the middle class or make someone else unhappy? As has been stated to you previously, consumption inequality is far more important of a metric to look at. If someone has wealth on paper but never spends much of it on consumption, that does not hurt society.

The reason why I brought up the no recession in 29 years stat earlier is because recessions are the surest way to reduce wealth inequality as the stock market takes a dive, while long periods of uninterrupted economic growth are going to lead to stock and real estate prices rising. The government is largely to blame for the extent of the real estate prices as they would drop dramatically if they let anyone build new housing anywhere and removed all height restrictions amd parking requirements. It's largely why Dallas is less than 15% the cost of housing compared with San Fransisco for a comparable unit. That will help reduce wealth inequality as well.

What does it matter what it is due to?

You can't blame Bill Gates for MS stock going up. Most wealth is in stock. You can blame CEOs for accepting stock options, but that's all.

 

[ZiprHead]

A huge divide between wealth and income between those at the top and the rest of us is exactly what various studies and stats show;

Quote;
''More wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich, with the gap between Australia’s highest paid and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over the past 20 years.

A new report by Oxfam Australia released today highlights how the share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the top one per cent of Australians grew to 23 per cent last year, up from 22 per cent in 2016.

The top one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined.

“Wealth inequality in Australia has been on the rise over the past two decades, with the gulf between the amount of wealth held by the top 1 per cent and the bottom 50 per cent now the greatest at any time over this period,’’ the report says.

Oxfam Australia said the findings highlighted “a broken economic system that is concentrating ever more wealth into the hands of the rich and powerful, while ordinary working people are not always able to scrape by”.

“This is fuelling an inequality crisis all around the world, where people are finding it harder to lift themselves out of poverty and the divide between the rich and the poor is continuing to grow, including in Australia,’’ it said.''

Credit Suisse report
''Global inequality is growing, with half the world’s wealth now in the hands of just 1% of the population, according to a new report.

The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich, according to research by Credit Suisse, which also finds that for the first time, there are more individuals in the middle classes in China – 109m – than the 92m in the US.

Tidjane Thiam, the chief executive of Credit Suisse, said: “Middle class wealth has grown at a slower pace than wealth at the top end. This has reversed the pre-crisis trend which saw the share of middle-class wealth remaining fairly stable over time.”



Both. The problem is, as mentioned before, twofold .

Firstly, the top earners, though only a small percentage, command exorbitant salary and bonus packages.

Secondly, management salaries in general have increased while ordinary wages have stagnated over the past few decades.

It is partly this situation that is concentrating wealth at the top of our social and economic systems.


The growth gap

Australians’ wages are stubbornly stagnant, but it’s a quite different story for CEOs.

Over the past couple of years, CEO remuneration has climbed 46 per cent more, year on year, than average Australian incomes.

Mr Liveris believes corporations need to align increases in executive remuneration to Australia’s Wage Price Index, in an effort to win back trust in the country’s biggest businesses.''

How much of that wealth gap is due to stocks in companies? How does someone willing to bid a higher price on shares in companies do anything to squeeze the middle class or make someone else unhappy? As has been stated to you previously, consumption inequality is far more important of a metric to look at. If someone has wealth on paper but never spends much of it on consumption, that does not hurt society.

The reason why I brought up the no recession in 29 years stat earlier is because recessions are the surest way to reduce wealth inequality as the stock market takes a dive, while long periods of uninterrupted economic growth are going to lead to stock and real estate prices rising. The government is largely to blame for the extent of the real estate prices as they would drop dramatically if they let anyone build new housing anywhere and removed all height restrictions amd parking requirements. It's largely why Dallas is less than 15% the cost of housing compared with San Fransisco for a comparable unit. That will help reduce wealth inequality as well.

 

[Canard DuJour]

How much of that wealth gap is due to stocks in companies?

Probably rather a lot. What about it? The dollar value of stocks is the quantity of dollars they can be exchanged for.

How does someone willing to bid a higher price on shares in companies do anything to squeeze the middle class or make someone else unhappy?

Depends who "someone" is. Probably rather a lot where firms buy their own shares rather than invest in actual production. Someone else willing to bid "a higher price on shares in companies" could go either way for the middle class. Rewarding executives with shares and share options tends to incentivise the former.

As has been stated to you previously, consumption inequality is far more important of a metric to look at.

A metric which conveniently misses how neoliberalism has reduced real living standards...

Consider two households with the same consumption. One has a single breadwinner with a secure job, regular hours, benefits, a pension and enough disposable income to save for comfortable retirement. The other needs two breadwinners with increasingly insecure, zero-hours-contract "jobs", long commutes, missed parenting (if the marriage survives the strain) to maintain the same consumption.

Do they have the same living standards? No, they're worlds apart.

If someone has wealth on paper but never spends much of it on consumption, that does not hurt society.

It certainly can if there's a negative correlation of said paper wealth with wage and productivity growth.

The reason why I brought up the no recession in 29 years stat earlier is because recessions are the surest way to reduce wealth inequality as the stock market takes a dive, while long periods of uninterrupted economic growth are going to lead to stock and real estate prices rising. The government is largely to blame for the extent of the real estate prices as they would drop dramatically if they let anyone build new housing anywhere and removed all height restrictions amd parking requirements. It's largely why Dallas is less than 15% the cost of housing compared with San Fransisco for a comparable unit. That will help reduce wealth inequality as well.

..and what "no recession in 29 years stat" ?

 

[DBT]

What does it matter what it is due to?

You can't blame Bill Gates for MS stock going up. Most wealth is in stock. You can blame CEOs for accepting stock options, but that's all.

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I made no mention of blame. I merely provided quotes and links to studies and stats which say what they say regardless of me or my position on this issue.

Now you can try to deny the validity these studies, but you don't have a leg to stand on. You don't have a leg to stand on because each study cites its source material and methodology and if there were serious flaws, their opponents could have a field day. No such thing has happened.

If you care to try, go ahead. Submit your refutation to Oxfam, et all. and we'll see how it goes.

 

[barbos]

What does it matter what it is due to?

You can't blame Bill Gates for MS stock going up. Most wealth is in stock. You can blame CEOs for accepting stock options, but that's all.

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I made no mention of blame. I merely provided quotes and links to studies and stats which say what they say regardless of me or my position on this issue.

Data in your links is a result of stock price going up.

Now you can try to deny the validity these studies, but you don't have a leg to stand on.

I have and I do have a leg

You don't have a leg to stand on because each study cites its source material and methodology
and if there were serious flaws, their opponents could have a field day. No such thing has happened.

If you care to try, go ahead. Submit your refutation to Oxfam, et all. and we'll see how it goes.

I already explained all the flaws.

 

[DBT]

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I made no mention of blame. I merely provided quotes and links to studies and stats which say what they say regardless of me or my position on this issue.

Data in your links is a result of stock price going up.

Now you can try to deny the validity these studies, but you don't have a leg to stand on.

I have and I do have a leg

You don't have a leg to stand on because each study cites its source material and methodology
and if there were serious flaws, their opponents could have a field day. No such thing has happened.

If you care to try, go ahead. Submit your refutation to Oxfam, et all. and we'll see how it goes.

I already explained all the flaws.

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

 

[barbos]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

You need studies which show that most of the "wealth" Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos hold is in stock and not in luxury cars/houses/yachts?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Data in your links is a result of stock price going up.

I have and I do have a leg

You don't have a leg to stand on because each study cites its source material and methodology
and if there were serious flaws, their opponents could have a field day. No such thing has happened.

If you care to try, go ahead. Submit your refutation to Oxfam, et all. and we'll see how it goes.

I already explained all the flaws.

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

You want evidence that the majority of wealth held by the super rich is in stocks? What else would it be in? Of course real estate is a major major investment for most wealthy people. But it pales in comparison to stocks.

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...1214/where-does-bill-gates-keep-his-money.asp

 

[Axulus]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

You want evidence that the majority of wealth held by the super rich is in stocks? What else would it be in? Of course real estate is a major major investment for most wealthy people. But it pales in comparison to stocks.

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...1214/where-does-bill-gates-keep-his-money.asp

Here's a really good image:

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-assets-make-wealth/

 

[Emily Lake]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

How do you define wealth?

 

[lpetrich]

The most recent two posts here: "My heroes are so poor, so poor, so poor! Feel sorry for them! They are the only people whom we ought to feel sorry for."

 

[Axulus]

The most recent two posts here: "My heroes are so poor, so poor, so poor! Feel sorry for them! They are the only people whom we ought to feel sorry for."

Bomb#20 already had an eloquent response to this silly accusation, which you obviously missed, so I'll just repost it:

That's an artifact of your moral psychology; it's not anything I'm implying. A great many people have a peculiar sort of moral blindness: they're incapable of separating moral judgments from feelings of pity. It's as though they imagine their tear ducts are better judges of right and wrong than their brains. And they project this limitation onto everyone else. Consequently, when they hear an argument for fairness to someone, they imagine they're being told they should feel sorry for him.

No, CEOs are not being persecuted, for the most part*. However it's plain that a lot of people in this thread are drooling over the idea of being allowed to persecute them. So I'm arguing against those people. If a Muslim came here and told us that taxes should be higher on Christians than on Muslims, because the Holy Quran says so, and I pointed out that that would be unfair to Christians, would you say I was making it sound as if Christians are being persecuted?

(* Of course there are a few CEOs who've been charged with violating ex post facto laws by overzealous prosecutors.)

 

[bilby]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

You want evidence that the majority of wealth held by the super rich is in stocks? What else would it be in? Of course real estate is a major major investment for most wealthy people. But it pales in comparison to stocks.

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...1214/where-does-bill-gates-keep-his-money.asp

The accumulation of wealth by the super rich can be completely unrelated to increases in stock prices, even if they hold the majority of their wealth as stocks.

You can have a million dollar portfolio because you bought $1,000 of stocks which then increased in value to $1m; OR because you bought $850,000 of stocks which then increased in value to $1m.

Only in the former case is the majority of the wealth due to increasing stock prices; But in both cases, the majority of the wealth is held as stocks.

You are rebutting a different claim from the one made.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Corporate buybacks are intended to boost stock prices, and one effect of income inequality is said to be asset inflation, so it seems reasonable to me that more money invested in stocks results in higher prices.

I've seen stories lately suggesting that the recent flattening of the stock market is due to the Fed's unwinding of its balance sheet.

 

[lpetrich]

The most recent two posts here: "My heroes are so poor, so poor, so poor! Feel sorry for them! They are the only people whom we ought to feel sorry for."

Bomb#20 already had an eloquent response to this silly accusation, which you obviously missed, so I'll just repost it: (...)

A classic argument from the Right: poor people are really rich, and rich people are really poor. Also from the Right: we alone have the right to feel sorry for anyone, to weep for anyone, to help them escape suffering the consequences of their actions and to help them escape their responsibilities.

 

[DBT]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

You want evidence that the majority of wealth held by the super rich is in stocks? What else would it be in? Of course real estate is a major major investment for most wealthy people. But it pales in comparison to stocks.

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...1214/where-does-bill-gates-keep-his-money.asp

To invest heavily in stocks, you need the money to do so; high income, resources, property, etc. Someone working as a cleaner on $8.50 an hour is not going to invest millions in the stock market.

That's not the mention wealth accumulated over generations, professional people on high incomes, perhaps Landlords collecting rent from retail property.

Just saying 'stocks' 'stocks' or bonds does not explain where the money came from in the first place....it may be wealthy families who have accumulated their holdings, property, bonds, etc, over generations; old money. Or nouveau rich, the tech generation of whiz kids, but certainly not those on minimum wage, or even average wage.