Inequality

[Stickman]

Certainly the exception in this day and age...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/14/richer-sounds-staff-julian-richer

[AngryOfTuebrook]

American billionaires calling for a Wealth Tax.

https://time.com/5613228/billionaires-calling-for-wealth-taxes/?fbclid=IwAR2QEInB1RdFoj1iCngj_F2E86leC0WjtY247qDx1on7L8tb5VV1TLBjMdo

 

https://medium.com/@letterforawealthtax/an-open-letter-to-the-2020-presidential-candidates-its-time-to-tax-us-more-6eb3a548b2fe

 

America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more. A wealth tax could help address the climate crisis, improve the economy, improve health outcomes, fairly create opportunity, and strengthen our democratic freedoms. Instituting a wealth tax is in the interest of our republic.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I see from that Time article that Bernard Arnault has joined Bezos and Gates on the (short) list of centibillionaires.

 

To get perspective on that, if you were paid $1.00 a second, it would take you 11.6 days to become a millionaire; it would take you nearly 3,169 years to become a centi-billionaire.

[SasaS]

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I see from that Time article that Bernard Arnault has joined Bezos and Gates on the (short) list of centibillionaires.

 

To get perspective on that, if you were paid $1.00 a second, it would take you 11.6 days to become a millionaire; it would take you nearly 3,169 years to become a centi-billionaire.

 

To get more perspective on that, their wealth for the most part reflects the theoretical value of the companies they founded, i.e. their market capitalization. It took Amazon for example almost ten years to double its market value since the IPO in 1997, and exploded over the past ten years. Now, if most of its half a million employees were partly paid in shares, many of them would also be fairly rich. Or if there is a sudden disruptive event, the company may quickly become worthless. It's not like Gates and Bezos own half of Wales and Scotland (yet).

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

To get more perspective on that, their wealth for the most part reflects the theoretical value of the companies they founded, i.e. their market capitalization. It took Amazon for example almost ten years to double its market value since the IPO in 1997, and exploded over the past ten years. Now, if most of its half a million employees were partly paid in shares, many of them would also be fairly rich. Or if there is a sudden disruptive event, the company may quickly become worthless. It's not like Gates and Bezos own half of Wales and Scotland (yet).

That's one of the reasons I can't stand talk of anyone being "worth" a billion, or "earning" a billion; much of their wealth is unrelated to their talents or hard work. 

[Strontium]

Their wealth is directly related to the value that others put on their output.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

Their wealth is directly related to the value that others put on their output.

Not really their output: wealth is a measure of their assets. So, for example, if two people buy a load of houses in two different areas and neither of them do anything to improve the houses, but (for whatever reason) one area becomes "hot" and the other doesn't, then one person's wealth has increased more than the other's.  It's hard to argue that the wealthier of the two deserves more, or is more worthy, or has earned anything or has generated more valuable outputs than the other.  Cunt just got lucky.

[Strontium]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

Not really their output: wealth is a measure of their assets. So, for example, if two people buy a load of houses in two different areas and neither of them do anything to improve the houses, but (for whatever reason) one area becomes "hot" and the other doesn't, then one person's wealth has increased more than the other's.  It's hard to argue that the wealthier of the two deserves more, or is more worthy, or has earned anything or has generated more valuable outputs than the other.  Cunt just got lucky.

 

Right, but rich people typically aren't rich because they bought a house and its value skyrocketed.

[A Red]

16 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Not really their output: wealth is a measure of their assets. So, for example, if two people buy a load of houses in two different areas and neither of them do anything to improve the houses, but (for whatever reason) one area becomes "hot" and the other doesn't, then one person's wealth has increased more than the other's.  It's hard to argue that the wealthier of the two deserves more, or is more worthy, or has earned anything or has generated more valuable outputs than the other.  Cunt just got lucky.

Investing is like gambling, you take a risk, if it works you get hopefully good rewards. Your guy was either very lucky or was clever but either way he "earned" his money because he took the risk in the first place. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

19 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Right, but rich people typically aren't rich because they bought a house and its value skyrocketed.

No, but that's just one example of an asset. 

[Strontium]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

No, but that's just one example of an asset. 

 

Sure, but most assets don't appreciate massively in value for no other reason than luck, was my point. It normally requires someone to add value to them.

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Sure, but most assets don't appreciate massively in value for no other reason than luck, was my point. It normally requires someone to add value to them.

Yeah, sure. Even houses don't generally appreciate massively on their own - they don't exist outside of area expansion, prosperity and investment locally, rising economy, etc - but overall, you can earn a lot of money from owning things with something happening that's out of your control. Stocks and things can go up, new tech take off in unexpected ways, and so on. In which case, the return isn't really comparable to the input. It's not quite a lottery, but sometimes it's a bit of a casino and you get a lot more back than your input or expertise requires. 

 

I'm not even making an argument for or anything, just commenting on that one thing. 

[Jairzinho]

Being an investment banker is rather like being a sponsored poker player.

[moof]

52 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Sure, but most assets don't appreciate massively in value for no other reason than luck, was my point. It normally requires someone to add value to them.

Typically the workers add the value, not the bosses

[SasaS]

Well, Jeff Bezos ran Amazon pretty ruthlessly like a driven man for 25 years, I'd venture a guess that the fact how he ran the company has something to do with its value. Of the three most valuable American companies, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, you would have to argue that Gates, Jobs, Bezos et al. had a lot to do with creation of the value. None of them existed 40 odd years ago, and probably won't exist in 40 years time.

[Strontium]

31 minutes ago, moof said:

Typically the workers add the value, not the bosses

 

So why don't the workers go off and start their own successful company, then? Since they're the ones adding the value.

[Jairzinho]

If only life was as simple as you pretend it is.

[Strontium]

If only people could give me a straight answer to simple questions.

[moof]

Amazon would collapse by tomorrow without workers. Wtf 

[Strontium]

Most companies would collapse without workers. That's not really an answer to the question.

 

Let's put it another way - if the people at the bottom are the ones adding the value, why do they need the people at the top at all?

 

Either the people at the top are adding something crucial, or they're not.

[lifetime fan]

40 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

So why don't the workers go off and start their own successful company, then? Since they're the ones adding the value.

 

My father gave me a small million dollar loan to set up a business but I made my fortune through my own intelligence and hard work. 

[Jairzinho]

20 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

Most companies would collapse without workers. That's not really an answer to the question.

 

Let's put it another way - if the people at the bottom are the ones adding the value, why do they need the people at the top at all?

 

Either the people at the top are adding something crucial, or they're not.

Why are you pretending to be so stupid?

[SasaS]

Everyone adds some value but it's often difficult to measure how much. Workers at Nokia could have worked as hard as they wanted, the company would still collapse because it made a big mistake. Apple didn't. So in this case, it is clear where the crucial value was created at that time. If you start a company and need me to work for you for peanuts until you get going and I am willing to put my trust in you / gamble and accept share in the company, I am adding more value than just my labour. And so on.

[A Red]

The entrepreneur/investor takes the risk. Doesnt matter if they were given or loaned the money to do it. He who dares wins Rodney etc. 

[TheHowieLama]

The reality is the worker shows up for a check. Only the very best companies get the worker to care about who the check comes from.

Ironically the further you move a society to the "left" the less the worker cares about who the check comes from, much less the quality of the work.