The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html?utm_content=buffer0dd57&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

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.

Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work.

[Póg mo 1,749]

5 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html?utm_content=buffer0dd57&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

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.

Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work.

Yes, but what about about illegal immigration and abortion? 

[Dashinka 23,199]

Socialism for all!  Everyone knows that under a socialist economy everyone is equally poor except for the elite leadership class.

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

10 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html?utm_content=buffer0dd57&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

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.

Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work.

There is this myth that rich people do not work.

They work more than everyone else and they are smarter. I don't see anything wrong with them getting most of the wealth created. It actually makes sense.

[Dashinka 23,199]

14 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

There is this myth that rich people do not work.

They work more than everyone else and they are smarter. I don't see anything wrong with them getting most of the wealth created. It actually makes sense.

You haven’t heard, all rich people are bad!

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Vulture Capitalism at it's finest.

[bcking 3,157]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Socialism for all!  Everyone knows that under a socialist economy everyone is equally poor except for the elite leadership class.

We don't have an elite leadership class right now? 1% with 82% of the wealth? That sounds pretty elite to me.

 

1 hour ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

There is this myth that rich people do not work.

They work more than everyone else and they are smarter. I don't see anything wrong with them getting most of the wealth created. It actually makes sense.

There is this myth that poor people don't work.

 

Many poor people I know work harder than many rich people. I don't see anything wrong with them being able to support and feed their family while working 80 hours a week at 3 separate jobs.

 

-------

 

In general though I have no problem with rich people who work hard. I do think we have an "inherited wealth" issue that could be addressed. But if someone is smart and enterprising, they should be able to reap the benefits. 

Edited April 3, 2018 by bcking

[Sonea 138]

2 hours ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

There is this myth that rich people do not work.

They work more than everyone else and they are smarter. I don't see anything wrong with them getting most of the wealth created. It actually makes sense.

It could have been phrased better, but I think they were getting at the notion of passive versus active income. The majority of wealth for the 1% is passive.

 

IE. for this latest economic cycle if you have 10m invested, even a conservative setup should net minimum 600,000 a year.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

It could have been phrased better, but I think they were getting at the notion of passive versus active income. The majority of wealth for the 1% is passive.

 

IE. for this latest economic cycle if you have 10m invested, even a conservative setup should net minimum 600,000 a year.

Wealth creates more wealth. 

 

That will probably always be the case, but I do think that plus inherited wealth are the two primary reasons that the wealth gap is getting a little out of hand.

 

I don't want to see wealth redistribution or equality, but I do think that if someone works a 60 hour work week they should at least be able to provide food and shelter for a reasonable sized family (I'd also throw in health insurance). If a full time job pays less than is a "livable" wage, who do we really expect to hold those jobs? They can't all go to teenagers working summer jobs.

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

8 minutes ago, Sonea said:

It could have been phrased better, but I think they were getting at the notion of passive versus active income. The majority of wealth for the 1% is passive.

 

IE. for this latest economic cycle if you have 10m invested, even a conservative setup should net minimum 600,000 a year.

I disagree.

Most doctors, lawyers, professionals, business owners work A LOT.

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Wealth creates more wealth. 

 

That will probably always be the case, but I do think that plus inherited wealth are the two primary reasons that the wealth gap is getting a little out of hand.

 

I don't want to see wealth redistribution or equality, but I do think that if someone works a 60 hour work week they should at least be able to provide food and shelter for a reasonable sized family (I'd also throw in health insurance). If a full time job pays less than is a "livable" wage, who do we really expect to hold those jobs? They can't all go to teenagers working summer jobs.

60 hours performing surgery, or practicing law or accountancy is different than 60 hours flipping burgers, with all due respect.

If you flip burgers for 60 hours and you have kids to feed, then you made some seriously wrong choices in your life.

Wages are driven by market. Anyone could flip burgers, while very few highly qualified people can do open heart surgery.

[Sonea 138]

4 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

I disagree.

Most doctors, lawyers, professionals, business owners work A LOT.

What are you disagreeing with? I didn't say anyone wasn't working. What I'm saying is that most wealth growth is passive rather than active. You get the difference between the two correct?

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

What are you disagreeing with? I didn't say anyone wasn't working. What I'm saying is that most wealth growth is passive rather than active. You get the difference between the two correct?

Yes, thanks. I get the difference (I'm a tax person).

But I disagree with that, unless we are talking about unrealized gains in the stock market (they are on paper until you sell).

Also, we can argue that some passive investments create very active growth (think investing in real estate).

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

10 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

I disagree.

Most doctors, lawyers, professionals, business owners work A LOT.

As do most teachers, nurses, parking lot attendants, cashiers, baristas, iron workers, etc...............

[Sonea 138]

3 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

Yes, thanks. I get the difference (I'm a tax person).

But I disagree with that, unless we are talking about unrealized gains in the stock market (they are on paper until you sell).

Also, we can argue that some passive investments create very active growth (think investing in real estate).

When these articles quote wealth they include unrealized gains generally - IE current valuations.