U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-15-2018, 02:12 AM
 
6,308 posts, read 4,765,469 times
Reputation: 8437

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man View Post
Teachers, firemen and union workers of all kinds have pension plans that own stocks and bonds. That makes them part of the 1%.
More like the top 15%. Only 1% of the people can be in the 1%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2018, 07:16 AM
 
Location: Brew City
3,133 posts, read 1,953,529 times
Reputation: 4160
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Yep.

Cutting down the tree is the lowest component and least value added part of this bit of wealth. Managing the harvesting of the tree, knowing which tree to harvest, bringing the tree to a mill or to market, and owning the land or having the rights to cut the tree is where the real wealth is created. And that goes to the man that merely pointed at the tree to be cut.
Poor analogy. Especially if the expert forester works for the US Government. I can assure you my husband is not wealthy. And the Government certainly is not getting wealthy off timber sales.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2018, 10:19 AM
 
6,815 posts, read 4,408,035 times
Reputation: 11918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Wealth is a lot of work to handle and maintain, and many people simply aren't inclined to that, or have no interest in doing it, or are incapable of doing it....
While this is largely true, the general presumption is that wealth, or any other form of success (music, sports, science, literature,…) is substantially about luck. Two restaurants are opened, by equally motivated, talented and sedulous owners. Next to one, a new metro-station opens. Next to the other, an anchor-store closes, and the neighborhood goes downhill. The first restaurant prospers. The second fails. Do we fault the owner of the second? Alternatively, do we punitively tax the owner of the first, to succor the owner of the second? Tough question, is it not?

That a small minority “grabbed” the majority of the wealth, is axiomatic… the Mathew effect. Most wealth comes from return on assets, not return on labor. By definition, it’s the wealthy who have the assets. Should we astringently weigh them down with compensatory burdens? Should we instead reward them, for “creating jobs”? Not obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
More like the top 15%. Only 1% of the people can be in the 1%.
Sometimes I wonder about that. In some circles, it seems that anyone with a few million dollars in his/her Fidelity account is in the "1%". It seems that in America we have 10 or 20 million one-percenters... more, if we don't divide household wealth by number of household occupants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2018, 01:47 PM
 
560 posts, read 305,765 times
Reputation: 1816
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny View Post
Just because you read something does not make it true. Before you swallow the line, it is best to question the source. In this case, the data is coming from a highly biased source. Oxfam International is a "charity" that collects money to fight poverty. We have no idea where they came up with these numbers but they clearly serve their purpose. I am also turned off when I read about the wealthy "grabbed" more. Clearly that is an attempt to sensationalize rather than to present the facts.






The article has less than 20 sentences in it, and you didn't even read that much.
You seem to think the data comes from Oxfam. It does not come from Oxfam.


You also said "We have no idea where they came up with these numbers".
The sixth sentence of the article says "The study, released ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, was produced using data from Credit Suisse's (CS) Global Wealth Databook."
So that's where they came up with these numbers.


You can get you a summary and download you own copy here:
https://www.credit-suisse.com/corpor...17-201711.html
and
https://www.credit-suisse.com/corpor...th-report.html






There's a misconception that most of the responders have.
The top 1% isn't just the uber-wealthy, and it's not just business owners. It's basically just people with good jobs that save some money.
Consider that most Americans and Europeans are in that top 1% by income, and they got most of the gains.
https://www.investopedia.com/article...cent-world.asp


To be in the top 1% in the world by income, you need to make $32,400.
By assets, you'll need $770,000, which is attained by many Americans as they approach retirement (include the value of house)


Also, one thing the article didn't mention that is important, the percent rate of increase in wealth was greater for the bottom half than for the upper.
"Last but not least, all levels of society were benefitting from the rewards. While global mean wealth per adult grew at 7 percent per year between 2000 and 2007, the bottom half of wealth holders did even better: Median wealth per adult grew at 12 percent per year."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2018, 03:44 PM
 
912 posts, read 550,708 times
Reputation: 1543
The 1% probably created way more than the 82% they supposedly "grabbed". Creating wealth allows people to be employed, and in turn "grab" their own wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2018, 03:59 PM
 
Location: midvalley Oregon and Eastside seattle area
2,898 posts, read 1,344,207 times
Reputation: 2410
I wouldn't say, "grabbed" since the term brings up images of "taking from someone" or frenzied shopping for scarce toys.

I would think "given" is a much better term and illustrates what is actually happening.
Being a gracious receiver, I say "Thankyou. you are very kind and generous. "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2018, 06:13 PM
 
Location: S.W. Florida
1,685 posts, read 664,786 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz View Post
World's richest 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017, Oxfam study finds

More than $8 of every $10 of wealth created last year went to the richest 1%.
That's according to a new report from Oxfam International, which estimates that the bottom 50% of the world's population saw no increase in wealth.
I don’t know why all of a sudden this is considered to be news. There has always been a small % of the populace that earn the most. Just as there has always been a large segment that sees no income growth, or even lose ground. Nothing at all new about this. Even Jesus said “the poor are always with you”. Is this fair? Of course it’s not fair, but it is reality. It takes a lot of knowledge to earn a lot of money these days,therefore educating oneself in how to accomplish that is paramount to success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2018, 08:54 PM
 
560 posts, read 305,765 times
Reputation: 1816
It would be nice if the one-tenth that own so much of the world were generating wealth through their efforts, but what is happening is that the economic concept called rent-seeking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2018, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,796 posts, read 2,151,295 times
Reputation: 5192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man View Post
Teachers, firemen and union workers of all kinds have pension plans that own stocks and bonds. That makes them part of the 1%.
What a bunch of BS NMLM and a bunch of #'s Only problem with your scenario is that those Teachers.. Firemen and union workers.. THEY get charged through their proverbial noses to invest.. and are forced to suck up the losses when whatever investments tank.. Meanwhile Corporate hierarchy gets bailed out when going bankrupt!

I completely disagree with your equating working citizens with corporate. Market types who GAMBLE/with their money.. and LOSSES only directly affect those TEACHERS, Firemen and Union workers.. So suggesting the working folks are part of that 1% is truly BS BS BS !! THEY don't get bailed out!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2018, 09:38 PM
 
5,220 posts, read 2,375,434 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegabern View Post
Poor analogy. Especially if the expert forester works for the US Government. I can assure you my husband is not wealthy. And the Government certainly is not getting wealthy off timber sales.
I’m not sure if you read the post that I responded to, or if you understood it, but my analogy is spot on. However, since you’re struggling with it, I’ll make it simpler:

Those that direct and control labor are generally rewarded at a greater level than those that provide the labor.

Was that simple enough?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top