Wealth Inequality

[coolcup]

Mango flavour compounds:

mango-flavour-compounds

I think I am meant to laugh but I don't get it? :1zhelp:

 

[burglar]

I think I am meant to laugh but I don't get it? :1zhelp:

Had to look it up (i have an enquiring mind).
Having found it, and finding it amazingly complex, I thought to share.

Like Professor Julius Sumner Miller, I like to share wonderment with great enthusiasm.

The professor aka "The Professor", once pointed out a dew drop on a blade of grass.
As it was a hot day and late afternoon, ... he was amazed at the beauty of it.

His guest failed to see the wonder of it and was asked to leave!?.

 

[ftw129]

Hey Craft I'm sorry I pissed you off.

 

[burglar]

Hey Craft I'm sorry I pissed you off.

So are we getting serious about the topic now, ... or no?!


If so, I would like to offer this:

During the GFC, I wondered if the Market would survive.
I don't know whether it has.
It's more of a three-ring circus than ever.

Superficially it has survived!
So I am assuming that the Market is needed (as a conduit of money?).

 

[Wysiwyg]

Superficially it has survived!
So I am assuming that the Market is needed (as a conduit of money?).

Wealth transferal is the name of the game. The largest casino in town.

 

[piggybank]

A record 9.63 million households had a net worth of $1 million or more last year, a 58 percent increase from 2008. The number of affluent households worth between $100,000 and $1 million also went up in 2013. There was a record 9.63 million households in the U.S. with a net worth of $1 million or more last year, according to new market research. The number of millionaire households surged 58 percent from a dip in 2008, when there were...

More can be read by clicking on this link:- http://time.com/23764/u-s-millionai..._content=643477&utm_campaign=Saturday&modapt=

 

[brty]

From the very first post by Craft....

Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one precent of the population.

That 1% of population is just over 70 million people.

From The Telegraph ,today.....

A record-breaking 12 million people around the world were millionaires last year

So that means that if you have $1m in investable funds, you are not only in the top 1% of the worlds wealthiest, but in the top 20% OF the top 1%.

It seems to me that most of the people participating in this thread about the wealthiest, were in fact talking about themselves, and probably didn't realise it.

This is indeed the lucky country.

 

[ROE]

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

 

[DeepState]

Left unattended, the capitalist system will produce extreme Power-law style distributions as amply described and referenced. Obviously some elements of capitalism were instrumental in increasing the efficiency of resource deployment or standards of living would not have risen so much relative to times when the concept was far less developed. Aggregate wealth and wealth dispersion have grown simultaneously.

Within a Nation, the issue discussed here relates to problems of wealth dispersion. Focusing only on the economics, FT reports in Luce E; 30 Mar 2014; "America's democracy is fit for the 1%" two views on productive impact:

1. Reduces growth because it undermines the middle class consumer engine.
2. Offers incentive to risk-takers to work on the next generation of technological breakthroughs.

For me, probably both are right. Item 1 was partly overcome by massive growth in borrowing for consumption from the Clinton years onwards in the US. Another link in the chain to the GFC.

But who sets up capitalism? Government sets up the law and the market system operates within that law. Hence part of the mechanism of the political economy is that, particularly in democracies or benevolent non-democracies, government should smooth extremes out if they become a problem. It becomes a problem if it harms productive capacity or destroys social fabric. So part of the answer lies in protecting and enhancing functional institutions.

Sling bows and arrows, but Australia is doing rather well. The US is about to dismantle limits on corporate political donations, following decisions on Super-PACs and other matters, essentially completing the transition of plutocracy. Perhaps self interest of the plutarchs may lead them to behave like Buffett and Gates, like the super-wealthy industrialists before them, and repay their societal dividend in some way. Perhaps we'll see upheaval. The American Dream was based on the belief that anyone can make it. Not anymore. When hope is lost, strange things happen.

Once you start looking at this on an international relations scale, there is no world government. There are only norms and expectations associated with good global citizenship. The LDCs are impoverished, but they don't vote in your country. Any gain that arises from aid is offset by ongoing population pressures in the LDCs due to high birth rates. However, efforts to improve productive capacity and reduce birthrates in the LDCs are underway with varying degrees of success. This is the greatest hope to narrow the gap in wealth but, more important than thinking in relative terms, lift countries and continents out of outright poverty.

 

[orr]

This is a link To Paul Krugmans Review of Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'.
A quote; 'This is a book that will change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics.'
From a Nobel laureate in the field.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/

 

[sydboy007]

http://marketdailynews.com/2014/04/...ay-an-average-wage-of-less-than-35000-a-year/

Overall, an astounding 59 percent of all American workers bring home less than $35,000 a year in wages.
So if you are going to make more than $35,000 this year, you are solidly in the upper half.

Retail salespersons, 4.48 million workers earning $25,370
Cashiers 3.34 million workers earning $20,420
Food prep and serving staff, 3.02 million workers earning $18,880
General office clerk, 2.83 million working earning $29,990
Registered nurses, 2.66 million workers earning $68,910
Waiters and waitresses, 2.40 million workers earnin g$20,880
Customer service representatives, 2.39 million workers earning $33,370
Laborers, and freight and material movers, 2.28 million workers earning $26,690
Secretaries and admins (not legal or medical), 2.16 million workers earning $34,000
Janitors and cleaners (not maids), 2.10 million workers earning, $25,140

 

[sydboy007]

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/class-based-economics/

Buried somewhere in the pile of stuff I have accumulated as I think about inequality are these statistics:

• Of all the income generated between 2009 and 2011 in the US 121% went to the top 1% of income earners
• The top 1% owns just over half of all investment assets including 64.4% of all bonds
• And, the bottom 90% incurs 72.5% of all debt

Is a modern day CEO really worth 354 times that of the average worker, whereas a 1980′s CEO was only worth 42 times? Of course not. Modern CEO’s are just much better at cheating and rigging the game. The economy hasn’t benefitted one bit from the spike in CEO incomes. So much for marginal productivity theory. It never was based much on reality, but it sure looked elegant, and sounded good. Especially if you wanted to defend inequality.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Is a modern day CEO really worth 354 times that of the average worker, whereas a 1980′s CEO was only worth 42 times? Of course not. Modern CEO’s are just much better at cheating and rigging the game.

Shareholders vote for their higher salaries. Sometimes higher than 30% increase on previous year. What do they do? Cut the workforce (costly humans) back to bone, cut asset base back to bone, run assets for longer and harder, expect higher output from remaining employees. Instantly, profit increases and they look great. Three years as CEO on several million dollars per year and they are set for life while the costly humans dealt the unfortunate necessity of termination, compete with others in the same situation.

Paid too much at the expense of hundreds of lower life forms while large shareholders/investors seeking a return on other people's capital they invest (not blood. sweat and tears) care zip about the impact. It doesn't affect them directly.

 

[Bill M]

Shareholders vote for their higher salaries. Sometimes higher than 30% increase on previous year. What do they do? Cut the workforce (costly humans) back to bone,

Unfortunately the system is stacked against us shareholders. There was I time when I took an active interest in voting for directors and CFO's. One particular time there was a problem with a blunder that a CFO did. I got onto the Shareholders Association website to see how we shareholders could vote this CFO out. Basically they showed us how to go about doing this. Guess what happened? The small shareholders did vote this CFO out, I was happy but at the directors meeting they said that they were not bound by the results of the vote and as such they decided to keep on that CFO and at a higher salary. Ever since then I do not vote or give sh*t about their "shareholder involvement" because they just do whatever they like anyway. What's the point asking us if they don't implement any way?

 

[qldfrog]

Shareholders vote for their higher salaries. Sometimes higher than 30% increase on previous year. What do they do? Cut the workforce (costly humans) back to bone, cut asset base back to bone, run assets for longer and harder, expect higher output from remaining employees. Instantly, profit increases and they look great. Three years as CEO on several million dollars per year and they are set for life while the costly humans dealt the unfortunate necessity of termination, compete with others in the same situation.

Paid too much at the expense of hundreds of lower life forms while large shareholders/investors seeking a return on other people's capital they invest (not blood. sweat and tears) care zip about the impact. It doesn't affect them directly.

not shareholders, but a few select individuals belonging to the same circle who act on behalf of a few funds, funds which manage the mandatory super of the low life being exploited...
Thanks to both parties who set up that system: left or right they all belong to these circles once they retire (nicely paid) from their political seat.
We have what we deserve.....

 

[orr]

Shareholders vote for their higher salaries. Sometimes higher than 30% increase on previous year. What do they do? Cut the workforce (costly humans) back to bone, cut asset base back to bone, run assets for longer and harder, expect higher output from remaining employees. Instantly, profit increases and they look great. Three years as CEO on several million dollars per year and they are set for life while the costly humans dealt the unfortunate necessity of termination, compete with others in the same situation.

If you add to this summary that the then devalued husk of what was a solid entity is then sold on by a private equity rapist whilst the brand name still has some 'cash'e' ... It's the story of Coates Transport, post it's sale by the founder.

Thomas Piketty takes aim at the over renumeration of upper Management and gives an explanation in 'Capital, in the Twenty-First Century', along with a couple of other things.
This review from the 'Financial Times'

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0c6e9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zNHFxYJv

 

[sydboy007]

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5620702/case-for-confiscatory-taxation

not sure I quite agree with a top rate of 90% taxation, but certainly something like 60-70% for the top 5% income earners might send the message that CEOs are not worth hundreds of times the pay their front line workers receive.

Some sort of inheritance / death tax would also be appropriate. Something that stops the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Maybe easier to close off all the tax loopholes and tax expenditures that seem to favour the rich.

I see in today's SMH The Australia Institute has produced a report showing what a massive drain current superannuation tax expenditures are 0- growing at over 12%. I quite like their universal non means tested pension payment, with the super tax concession removed. tax free super has to go eventually too. We hit the peak worker to dependent ratio in 2010 and it's a steep decline down till 2050.

Probably a snow balls chance, but with the budget deficit not going anywhere soon, it's these kinds of hard choices we'll eventually have to make.

 

[sptrawler]

[ I quite like their universal non means tested pension payment.

That is what we used to have, same as U.K.

Then it was incorperated into consolidated revenue, later when memories faded, it was means tested.

We could go around the same circle again, take everyones super into consolidated revenue and pay them a pension.

Then in 20 years time means test it again.lol

 

[CanOz]

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Thanks heaps for that ROE, must show my wife in hopes of getting her agreement on a new monthly charitable payment...amazing, and yet here you'd think we were really struggling sometimes...

 

[Wysiwyg]

Thanks heaps for that ROE, must show my wife in hopes of getting her agreement on a new monthly charitable payment...amazing, and yet here you'd think we were really struggling sometimes... http://www.globalrichlist.com/

I think they have left the important factor of living expenses out of the equation. I do not believe I am in the top 0.33% of worlds richest people by income with 75k net per year. A trolley of groceries averages $300/fortnight, fill up the car fuel tank is $110, mortgage $2900/month, various household bills $400/month as well as other one off stuff.