No one is putting a gun to the workers head here in the USA. Aren't happy with your standard of living? Go get a higher paying job. Better yet, get some education that increases the probability you will be successful. But don't take out any loans, stick to a CC if possible or go into a recession proof trade. My father-in-law was a plumber, not even a HS graduate. Put three kids through college, paid off his house and lived a happy, productive life with plenty of cash in the bank.
Your father in law was able to do that but that was long time ago. Today, the same path would probably impossible. Just alone "3 kids through college". How much was it then, how much is that now?
Well, u don't have to be a tech magnate to do it. My brother and sister-in-law were both elementary school teachers, put 3 boys thru college, are retired now at 62 with $200,000 year income and live in a house worth $1.2 million. Neither could have been anything technical. Look on transparent california, see what public employees make
You're wrong because money is a competitive asset. Money isn't food. Money isn't housing. Money is how we determine distribution of finite resources. Every purchase/sale operates like an auction and if you have more money, you can outbid others which secures those resources for yourself and means other people don't have them. There is no value in money itself, it's what that money can purchase that is important.
If you earn an extra $5,000 but someone else earns an extra $50,000 then they'll buy the property you want to buy instead of you. You'll have more money but you'll be poorer.
Wrong. you’re thinking of money strictly in terms of consumption. Money is also used as capital for investment and development of new products, processes and technologies. You yourself say “accumulation of resources “. Resources can be used for something other than consumption. It can be used for enlarging the pie so that all can enjoy and have access to more. Without resources, Steve Jobs could not have developed the iPhone. Carnegie could not have revolutionized the steel industry. Edison could not have pushed the electric technology. The list goes on and on.
I haven't described consumption only. You can buy things like property, transport infrastructure, farm land, office buildings, utilities, factories, natural materials - things that make it easier to produce what we need. And if billionaires get wealthier faster than everyone else, that makes it harder for everyone else to own those things because we get outbid by people who have gained more money than us.
Heard this statistic on the radio the other day. Shocking if true. Just thought it was interesting. Maybe not true now due to fluctuations...
Yeah but its also true if you have $10 you have more wealth than something like 40% of the US population. So you should be forced to give your $10 to all the people who have negative net worth.
According to Forbes, the top 3 richest in America added up to 507 billion dividend by ~50% of American's population that means the bottom 50% of Americans have a net worth of ~3100$... I find this very impossible thinking that the median income in America (the 50% in the middle which will include people on both sides of the 50% line in the middle) is $44,225 and you pay tax over ~13000. Many of those 50% own cars with more equity than 3100$... It's a false stat. I think these people are counting all the top 3s assets vs emergency funds of the lower 50% or something like that would be more believable... The top 3's net worth is what it is because they hold it in a publicly traded company they own so their wealth accumulates without tax and what they use is taxes at 21% which is the same effective tax rate for an individual that makes ~65k a year... If you look at the tax brackets the people that pay the most money by percentage are not the ultra wealthy but the semi wealthy (millions of net worth) that is why the sterio type of millionaires vote red (because they pay the majority of taxes today) and billionaires vote blue (because by percentage they pay almost half what the millionaires pay).
Yeah, that's not how it works. The bottom X percent doesn't have any money to funnel to anyone.
Some real geniuses posting in this thread.
Last I checked lots of poor people have iphones and shop on Amazon. The only people NOT funneling money to American oligarchs are literally hobos on the street and while there are a fair number of them, its trivial compared to the overall population of poor people.
Seriously. The knee-jerk criticism of the LR boards is that they promote racism and misogyny. Well, I personally find the orgy of braindead libertarian economic takes in this thread much more offensive.
Why do all of you bootstrap Ayn Rand loving dipsh!ts think we penalize (both in legal and cultural/structural terms) homelessness so hard in this country? Because they're the only people who are actually opting out of the full menu of consooooming! Now get out there and buy something - it's your patriotic duty!
Also nobody is arguing that Bezos et al are reaching into the pockets of welfare recipients and stealing their money. Wealth comes from natural resources and human labor. Exploiting both of those things is generally a good way to accumulate wealth. Thanks to the miracles of modern supply chains and whatnot the vast majority of that exploitation has been moved far away from the homes and families of your average LR poster. But the poor laborer (possibly a minor) who dug the cobalt out of the ground to go into the server farm you're connected to right now posting on this board? You better believe that some of the wages he would've gotten under a more just economic system ended up in Amazon/Bezos' coffers.
The stat quoted by OP doesn't really say much of anything about the wealth of the top three individuals. It says a whole lot about the wealth (or lack thereof) of the bottom X %.
But the bottom X % are the ones most likely funneling their $ to the top 3.
Yeah, they shop on Amazon, use Facebook/Instagram daily, and voted in Senators who heavily subsidized electric vehicles. Congrats bottom 50%, you did this 😄.
Another, and to me more important, measure of wealth is healthy time left on Earth, or Healthspan.
When you are young and healthy, you are a health span billionaire. Gates or Buffet would gladly exchange all of their wealth to be 20 again.
American life expectancy is now declining, for the first time in history, but our healthspan has been in decline for decades. If you are 65 now, on average you have 18 years left, but how many are healthy, cognizant and vigorous? Not many.
As an extremely fit AND healthy individual in my late 60s, I have many financially successful friends who are health span impoverished. I don't flaunt my current health and vigor around them ostentatiously (except maybe when competing, I give no quarter!) but I sense often a resentment, perhaps because they see me as "lucky", not knowing the multiplicity of things I do to optimize my health and fitness every day 24/7/365, from a baseline of poor health when I was younger. Kind of like how they got rich, and no doubt they have jealous energy around them as well around finances.
If you are still young, don't squander your health, invest in it. It has been an uphill struggle for a long time for all of those who wish to stay rich in years, with tons of disinformation to derail your efforts, but listen to your body, observe those around you, and learn from your own and others' mistakes. It WILL be worth it!
Wrong. you’re thinking of money strictly in terms of consumption. Money is also used as capital for investment and development of new products, processes and technologies. You yourself say “accumulation of resources “. Resources can be used for something other than consumption. It can be used for enlarging the pie so that all can enjoy and have access to more. Without resources, Steve Jobs could not have developed the iPhone. Carnegie could not have revolutionized the steel industry. Edison could not have pushed the electric technology. The list goes on and on.
I haven't described consumption only. You can buy things like property, transport infrastructure, farm land, office buildings, utilities, factories, natural materials - things that make it easier to produce what we need. And if billionaires get wealthier faster than everyone else, that makes it harder for everyone else to own those things because we get outbid by people who have gained more money than us.
Nothing stopping Joe Schmo from developing an EV then and building factories to bring them to market and make a bazillion $. That opportunity is available to everyone.
Another, and to me more important, measure of wealth is healthy time left on Earth, or Healthspan.
When you are young and healthy, you are a health span billionaire. Gates or Buffet would gladly exchange all of their wealth to be 20 again.
American life expectancy is now declining, for the first time in history, but our healthspan has been in decline for decades. If you are 65 now, on average you have 18 years left, but how many are healthy, cognizant and vigorous? Not many.
As an extremely fit AND healthy individual in my late 60s, I have many financially successful friends who are health span impoverished. I don't flaunt my current health and vigor around them ostentatiously (except maybe when competing, I give no quarter!) but I sense often a resentment, perhaps because they see me as "lucky", not knowing the multiplicity of things I do to optimize my health and fitness every day 24/7/365, from a baseline of poor health when I was younger. Kind of like how they got rich, and no doubt they have jealous energy around them as well around finances.
If you are still young, don't squander your health, invest in it. It has been an uphill struggle for a long time for all of those who wish to stay rich in years, with tons of disinformation to derail your efforts, but listen to your body, observe those around you, and learn from your own and others' mistakes. It WILL be worth it!
Also, set aside since money to low dose steroids later in life. Heard it's a game changer.
According to Forbes, the top 3 richest in America added up to 507 billion dividend by ~50% of American's population that means the bottom 50% of Americans have a net worth of ~3100$... I find this very impossible thinking that the median income in America (the 50% in the middle which will include people on both sides of the 50% line in the middle) is $44,225 and you pay tax over ~13000. Many of those 50% own cars with more equity than 3100$... It's a false stat. I think these people are counting all the top 3s assets vs emergency funds of the lower 50% or something like that would be more believable... The top 3's net worth is what it is because they hold it in a publicly traded company they own so their wealth accumulates without tax and what they use is taxes at 21% which is the same effective tax rate for an individual that makes ~65k a year... If you look at the tax brackets the people that pay the most money by percentage are not the ultra wealthy but the semi wealthy (millions of net worth) that is why the sterio type of millionaires vote red (because they pay the majority of taxes today) and billionaires vote blue (because by percentage they pay almost half what the millionaires pay).
Usually Forbes are relatively correct. You made a false assumption. You assume most of the poorest 50% are working. Look at Labor Participation Rate then get back to us. It's about 60%. There are people in prison. There are people in jail. There are homeless individuals. There are students. There are people on disability.
Last I checked lots of poor people have iphones and shop on Amazon. The only people NOT funneling money to American oligarchs are literally hobos on the street and while there are a fair number of them, its trivial compared to the overall population of poor people.
Seriously. The knee-jerk criticism of the LR boards is that they promote racism and misogyny. Well, I personally find the orgy of braindead libertarian economic takes in this thread much more offensive.
Why do all of you bootstrap Ayn Rand loving dipsh!ts think we penalize (both in legal and cultural/structural terms) homelessness so hard in this country? Because they're the only people who are actually opting out of the full menu of consooooming! Now get out there and buy something - it's your patriotic duty!
Also nobody is arguing that Bezos et al are reaching into the pockets of welfare recipients and stealing their money. Wealth comes from natural resources and human labor. Exploiting both of those things is generally a good way to accumulate wealth. Thanks to the miracles of modern supply chains and whatnot the vast majority of that exploitation has been moved far away from the homes and families of your average LR poster. But the poor laborer (possibly a minor) who dug the cobalt out of the ground to go into the server farm you're connected to right now posting on this board? You better believe that some of the wages he would've gotten under a more just economic system ended up in Amazon/Bezos' coffers.
We all know what "exploiting" to you means, which is the voluntary exchange of money and labor. Unless the poor laborer is being forced at gunpoint to dig out the cobalt, they are doing what is in their best interest. What the commie retards don't understand that the initial phase on creating the industrialized civilization that we all enjoy, there has to be people doing hard manual labor for cheap, especially in the beginning of development. And people are willing to do it because the alternative sucks!
I haven't described consumption only. You can buy things like property, transport infrastructure, farm land, office buildings, utilities, factories, natural materials - things that make it easier to produce what we need. And if billionaires get wealthier faster than everyone else, that makes it harder for everyone else to own those things because we get outbid by people who have gained more money than us.
Nothing stopping Joe Schmo from developing an EV then and building factories to bring them to market and make a bazillion $. That opportunity is available to everyone.
LOLOL, what?!? 'Everyone' has access to the enormous amounts of capital required to develop an EV (and all that entails), build factories, bring the products to market, etc??? This is one of the hands-down stupidest, most smugly clueless posts I've seen on this site in a very long time. What an absolute tool.
Another, and to me more important, measure of wealth is healthy time left on Earth, or Healthspan.
When you are young and healthy, you are a health span billionaire. Gates or Buffet would gladly exchange all of their wealth to be 20 again.
American life expectancy is now declining, for the first time in history, but our healthspan has been in decline for decades. If you are 65 now, on average you have 18 years left, but how many are healthy, cognizant and vigorous? Not many.
As an extremely fit AND healthy individual in my late 60s, I have many financially successful friends who are health span impoverished. I don't flaunt my current health and vigor around them ostentatiously (except maybe when competing, I give no quarter!) but I sense often a resentment, perhaps because they see me as "lucky", not knowing the multiplicity of things I do to optimize my health and fitness every day 24/7/365, from a baseline of poor health when I was younger. Kind of like how they got rich, and no doubt they have jealous energy around them as well around finances.
If you are still young, don't squander your health, invest in it. It has been an uphill struggle for a long time for all of those who wish to stay rich in years, with tons of disinformation to derail your efforts, but listen to your body, observe those around you, and learn from your own and others' mistakes. It WILL be worth it!
No, they won’t, or at least you don’t have a credible reason to think that. They have done something meaningful with their lives. Just living is meaningless, as is your “health span billionaire” point that is just a glib way to blather non sequiturs.
You seem to be in over your head on your middle aged “health and vigor” (wtf is “vigor” anyway?). Every thread isn’t about you. Or even about health.
Heard this statistic on the radio the other day. Shocking if true. Just thought it was interesting. Maybe not true now due to fluctuations...
Yeah but its also true if you have $10 you have more wealth than something like 40% of the US population. So you should be forced to give your $10 to all the people who have negative net worth.
That sounds like a $hit policy. You should look up the ideologies of the people who advocate a flat tax instead of a progressive tax.
The tax structure needs to be changed to incentivize paying workers more than giving executives stock. Bonuses to execs do not correlate with corporate success.
No they do "correlate". What you mean to say is there is most likely no causation since the cause is typically from the blue collar workers making minimum.
