
Richest 1% Will Own More Than All the Rest by 2016 - abhinovb
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/richest-1-will-own-more-than-all-the-rest-by-2016/
======
wjnc
Economic growth and the resulting distribution of wealth / capital is not a
zero sum game. So the fact that the top 1% owns more than the rest, is not a
problem per sé. Who cares what 'they' own, if I / we can live happily, in
wealth and in health. An opinion on the distribution of wealth (Piketty) is
more political than economical.

But even on the more libertarian axis of the spectrum (for the US:
conservative, for the rest of the world: liberal), it might be troubling.

'We' are working hard to eradicate poverty in all those countries attached to
the 'global economy'. That is such a big plus in the lives of billions.

But for the already developed world it might be different. One of (my)
principles to hold dear is the chance of improving oneself by studying,
working hard, etc. The demise of the middle class in many developed countries,
is an example. It seems to be getting harder for the many to work hard, own a
house and save enough for retirement.

The rents paid to the winners in, say, the financial sector or modern internet
are so disproportionate that they feel more like luck than skill. I don't have
an answer of policy, because if you target that glut of wealth but end op
hurting innovation, you hurt the billions as well.

But if (very big if) things like quantitative easing are stimulating the glut
of cash flowing towards finance and venture capital, we might not be creating
a very stable future where hard work and effort get rewarded with any notion
of certainty. And that ís a problem for the world.

~~~
mikeash
The problem as I see it is not wealth per se, but the fact that wealth confers
power. Concentrated wealth means concentrated power, and that means the
concentration of both will accelerate.

A rising tide lifts all boats, but who says the elite will remain content with
a rising tide? Once they accumulate enough wealth and power, they may start to
find it advantageous to add to their own wealth by impoverishing the rest.

It's often said that economics is not a zero sum game, and that for one person
to win, another does not have to lose. That is, of course, completely true!
But it doesn't mean that it's _impossible_ for one person to win by causing
another to lose.

This, of course, is nothing new. One of the best ways to accumulate power and
wealth throughout history has been to conquer and enslave. One of the best
things about the modern world is that we've managed to structure it such that
conquest and enslavement are no longer good ways to obtain power and wealth,
and you do much better by figuring out a better way to give people what they
want. But there's nothing that says it couldn't go back to the way it was,
perhaps with more clever and subtle techniques than simply leading a bunch of
rough men on horses into the villages of your enemies.

------
vixen99
[http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/what-
oxfam-...](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-
want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/)

(What Oxfam doesn’t want you to know: global capitalism means less poverty
than ever)

~~~
astrodust
If everyone in the 99% was earning barely $2/day then you could also argue
we've "eradicated poverty" by that metric.

There's two problems here, one of which is the non-1% is being squeezed hard
even if the lowest 20% is seeing modest gains.

~~~
JackFr
You (as well as this article, though less so) are conflating wealth and
income. Wealth is a stock; income is a flow.

In any economy what is produced is split between wages and profits. Wages are
the returns to labor, while profits are the return to capital. Income to
households can be both returns on wealth or returns on labor, so clearly
higher income will be correlated with higher wealth, and wealth inequality can
be both cause and effect of income in equality.

What the Oxfam article fails to mention, is that quality of life and income
have improved DRAMATICALLY for billions of people over the past 50 years, and
ironically what is standing in way of the bottom 50% are often legal and
cultural obstacles to accumulating capital -- wealth -- at both the individual
and national level.

~~~
astrodust
I have no idea why you insist on splitting hairs here. Most people have
marginal income and zero or negative wealth.

Those with higher incomes have higher wealth. The correlation here couldn't be
stronger even if it's not strictly linear.

------
rebootthesystem
Pretty sick of the constant class warfare nonsense.

People are not poor because Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Oprah have
lots of money. They are poor for other reasons which could fill pages to list
and discuss. The rich are not oppressing the poor or causing class disparity.
Government definitely is by sticking it's grotesque paws where it should not.

Apparently Obama is going to propose a hike in capital gains tax to 28%. If
that happens it would have gone up from 20% to 28% under his watch. That is a
40% increase overall! There are consequences to such changes. They are
destructive to the country, businesses, the middle class and the poor. We need
to go in the opposite direction.

Blaming the rich is just a nice populist way to focus people away from where
the real problems might lie.

------
forrestthewoods
Some people assume the default scale of things is linear. This is false. The
default is logarithmic. When feeling snarky I like to say that it's called the
natural log for a reason.

I feel like I see the 1%/50% ratio in more than a few places. One percent of
people own 50% of wealth. One percent of mobile apps make 50% of the revenue.
And probably a few more with respect to digital store fronts. Maybe not
exactly 1/50, but certainly closer to that than what people would like/hope
for. Can anyone think of more 1/50 examples?

------
runj__
The Oxfam text is called: "Wealth: Having it all and wanting more". This
bothers me.

"Wanting more" is pretty much the human condition, I'd hate to paraphrase
Gordon Gekko but that's why we're were we are today, that's why absolute
poverty is about to be eradicated.

Yes, inheritance can be disgusting but if that's part of what helps create
more wealth, so be it.

And no, I don't think people would move to the rocky mountains if we would
limit wealth creation for oneself, but I definitely think less (of anything)
would be created.

~~~
Ntrails
I inherit my parents genes. I inherit my fathers disposition and many of his
attitudes. I inherit from my parents to know what it means to be cared for.
Loved. Believed in. Supported.

Of all the things I will inherit, money is the least of the advantages I'll
get. Indeed it's the money spent before inheriting that has the biggest impact
for most people. I think inheritance is the wrong battle to fight, it rarely
impacts opportunity or environment which are so formative.

------
noelwelsh
Basically a duplicate (different article discussing the same source):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8910476](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8910476)

~~~
abhinovb
Yes. I posted the original source.

------
viggity
so what? I'm not worse off because Bill Gates or the Waltons have billions in
wealth. In fact, I'm better off. Microsoft, Walmart and the myriad of other
corporate empires lowers the costs of goods which improves my standard of
living.

~~~
chrisbennet
If you are in a field that isn't negatively effected by the Walton's downward
pressure on salaries, then yes, they've raised your _personal_ standard of
living.

When the Walton's employ people for less 40 hours a week just so they don't
have to pay benefits, they are externalizing that cost to the other taxpayers
(food stamps, housing assistance, health insurance).

I'm not without blame here. I'm pretty sure whenever I eat at a Chinese
restaurant that they are exploiting workers. The fact that the workers are
better off than they would be in China isn't really a defense.

~~~
viggity
have you ever been to a walmart? I would wager half of its employees are
unemployable and would be on 100% assistance were it not for walmart.

It isn't just my standard of living either. go to walmart at 11pm, or 2am and
see the shoppers there. their money goes a lot farther at walmart than it does
at costco. The massive scale of walmart's business coupled with the billions
it spend on trans log drives prices down. If walmart weren't there, how much
higher would target's prices be? or the prices at dollar general?

