The eight richest men in the world own half the world's wealth. This means that the other half is owned by 7.5 billion people. Oxfam, the British charity, which has been following the upward flow of wealth for the last decade says "‘This concentration of wealth at the top is holding back the fight to end global poverty,’ the report says, also claiming that executive pay in the UK is out of control." It appears that there is now a concerted movement to limit top executive pay.
There are a lot of negative consequences to a) the vast inequality and b) the fall out from producing that type of wealth.
Periodically, throughout world history, there have been revolutions when the poor slaughtered the rich. Both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution were a consequence of the poor led by the middle class in overthrowing the wealthy. Neither ended well. The French Revolution resulted in the Napoleonic wars and the Russian Revoution ended in totalitariansm..
Another consequence of virtually all wealth belonging to the top 5% is the rise of dictatorship and fascism. It is no coincidence that those countries with the poorest people also have the highest likelihood of having fascist regimes (dictatorships). At the end of WW1, massive fines were imposed on Germany. This impoverished the people, and from the poverty, another dictator arose. Of course, the people needed a scapegoat, and Hitler blamed the Jews, the gypsies, and any dissidents he could find.
The Great Depression was a consequence of rural America not being particularly interested in buying all the products that industry produced so the market was flooded with goods and companies went bankrupt. Along came Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew, and said, "I can show you how to control the world's population and make them buy from you forever."
And so he did. In fact, Hitler was the first politician to use his methodology. It does something like this.
The human brain learns 'truth' by hearing the same thing over and over again. If you tell people the same thing over and over again, no matter how obvious the lies are, they will believe it. All religion is based on that. Keep telling people the same thing over and over again, and people will accept what they are told without question. He called his invention advertising and public relations. More impolitic words would be indoctrination and brainwashing.
The massive amount of production has caused pollution which has led to the current mass extinction, air pollution, soil pollution, water pollution, and the pollution, in turn, has led to climate change. And all the goods have landed up in the massive landfills.
The wealth of the few is manipulating governments throughout the world. Politicians are bought and they then create public policies which are good for the wealthy and terrible for everybody else. They use 'brainwashing' techniques (frequent repetition) to make people believe what they are saying. Here are some examples.
1. They keep saying that they are going to create jobs. Not going to happen. Robots are taking over, and it's going to happen very, very fast.
2. They keep telling us that if we don't work ourselves to death (or dont' work at all), then we are bad, bad people. The truth is that in the 60s, already, we reached a point where we could produce enough for ourselves and work a 10 to 20 hour a week, and everybody could have enough.
3. They keep telling us that the rich are super special, that they have super abilities that we don't have, that without them, we couldn't create jobs or provide for ourselves. They tell us that there would be no innovation. The funny thing is that numerous studies over the last few decades have disproved all this. But because we keep hearing it over and over again (brainwashing), we believe it.
So we now have global populist (this means class warfare where the poor begin to vote against the rich) movements...
I have two questions for you, and I would ask that you consider the world, not just your particular country.
1. What do you think is going to happen.
2. How can we fix the situation?
"The eight richest men in the world own half the world's wealth."
The value of the real estate in just one borough of one American city (Manhattan, NYC) is many times the combined wealth of the wealthiest 8 men in the world. The wealth spent by the US government each and every year is also many times that figure. The claim that they own half the world is false to the point of being ludicrous - it would seem that you have been brainwashed.
Which borough is that? How many people own it? And what is its worth?
https://www.japantoday.com/category/wor … tion-oxfam
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-16/e … am/8185172
This calculation is done every year. Last year, it was the top 65 and the year before that the top 85.
That said, there is this to counter that argument.
http://fusion.net/story/380433/oxfams-d … isleading/
The counter argument is here, but it's somewhat unclear.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-16/e … am/8185172
Wilderness, the more detailed one is in response, the more it is likely someone will change their mind. Giving detailed information is what is required. That is what I'm asking for.
Please show the exact worth of the property and how you reached that figutre.
You need to spend some time reading that "fusion" link.
You said "The eight richest men in the world own half the world's wealth." Your link says those same eight men own 0.16% of the world's wealth. Now, any way you look at it, 0.50 (one half) does NOT equal .0016 (what portion the eight men own).
Then the link goes on to further negate your claim, discussing the manner in which the wealth is calculated and using debt to negate ownership. The bottom line is that the claim that eight people own half the world is truly ludicrous.
(Which borough? I mentioned Manhattan. How many people own it? Undetermined and irrelevant. What is it worth? Haven't a clue, except that it is far more than the $1T your eight men are worth. Real estate in Manhattan isn't cheap! )
I read all the links I gave you. The fact that I provide links that oppose my OP means that I am looking at it objectively. That said I didn't write it clearly. It's actually that 8 people own as much wealth as the bottom half. The rest of it still applies and I would like your opinion on it. Willing to give it?
Better. Much better. But I would still question it, and rather heavily.
Who owns most of Alaska? The US government. What is the US government? All of the citizenry. Should we then assign 1/320,000,000 of the value of Alaska to each citizen? Government owned real estate, just in the US, if split equally among all citizens makes the link wrong as well...assuming that you are including poor Americans in the bottom half of the people of earth (which they are not).
And that brings up another subject - the links use people of the third world to compare against the very top of the industrialized and rich nations. You don't find that just a bit spun and twisted?
Of course, I already mentioned that the calculations used in all the links use net worth, which is often a far different matter. You see, a credit card debt means you can't own a car or a house - even if you do own that wealth outright, the arithmetic used takes it away because of irrelevant debt. As far as opinion on the rest of it:
1. No robots aren't going to take over jobs real fast. It may happen (leaving just a relative handful of jobs) but I doubt it and it certainly isn't going to happen in less than many decades. Robots have a use in factories and a handful of other places, but the technology to put them to general work isn't there and won't be for a long time.
2. Typical gross liberal exaggeration. The world, even now, has never seen the time when 10 or even 20 hours per week of work will sustain a family. Or even an individual - even Robinson Crusoe, living off berries easily picked, spent more time than that feeding, clothing and housing himself.
3. You might believe the rich are special - the typical American conservative does not. You might believe you cannot provide jobs (as your hubs provide HP jobs) - most people do not. Once more, this statement is nothing but far left, liberal, gross exaggeration.
I'm not sure how to respond to your point about sharing Alaska. Do you honestly think that is I what I think?
Until the Industrial Revolution, human beings worked a 20 hour week. That is recorded in documents in Europe and the UK where hours were noted. Every second day in the UK was some holiday or other, and the working day stretched from about 4 hours to 16 hours depending on the season.. Could you please mention your source for the information that human beings have worked 40 hour weeks for as long as they have been in existence. That way I can update mine. I only adapt my world view when I have been provided with sufficient accurate evidence from university studies. I would be grateful to receive that.
I am going to quote from a paper at MIT.
"Before capitalism, most people did not work very long hours at all. The tempo of life was slow, even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure. When capitalism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that working hours in the mid-nineteenth century constitute the most prodigious work effort in the entire history of humankind."
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/r … kweek.html
You might like to read the entire paper. They might have worked 9 or 16 hour days during harvent, but essentially only worked between 120 and 150 days per year.
I would also like to understand why you think all scholars who show that historically people didn't work more than 20 hours per week are, internationally, liberals. Why would academics, internationally, lie about something like that? And why would all scholars in this particular field be liberals?
I don't understand that. Please can you also provide an academic source for that information. I always like to be as accurate as possible in whatever I say.
Saying that everything I say is gross liberal exaggeration is not a rebuttal of what I am saying. You actually need to give a reason (attached to some facts why it is not accurate.
In the interest of fair disclosure, I lived for 11 years in the States as a legal immigrant. I am, however a dual German/South African citizen and have lived most of my life is socialist democracies (Germany, Spain, the UK, etc.)
"Until the Industrial Revolution, human beings worked a 20 hour week. "
Did you include the time spent in the garden? The time spent weaving cloth and sewing clothing? The time spent hunting and then butchering and salting the meat? The time spent creating new tools to do these things? Time spent making candles to be able to work more hours in the winter? Time spent chopping firewood rather than buying electricity from fruits of a job?
Easy to say that farmers before the industrial revolution only worked 20 hours per week - to prove such a thing is not going to be possible. And if you fail to include tasks now paid for by employee work rather than on "free" time then you are comparing apples to oranges.
"When capitalism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. "
Disagree. What took their time was greed: greed for what they didn't have and thus must work additional hours for. It was never capitalism that forced more work hours.
I have the "diary" of my ancestor that homesteaded around 1900. Long after the industrial revolution, but that revolution had little effect in his life. Far outside "civilization", he was responsible for everything in his world. He did split and sell a few fence rails, but by far the bulk of his time went to his home, farm and food supply. And, judging from that book, his workday was from sunup to sundown and further in the winter with it's short days.
"I would also like to understand why you think all scholars who show that historically people didn't work more than 20 hours per week are, internationally, liberals."
I did not mean that, although nearly all academics in the US are far left liberals. What WAS meant was that the findings of those scholars are spun to indicate something that wasn't true, like forgetting to add in the "work" time to spin cloth and make clothing.
Gross exaggeration: again, comparing an employee relationship (a job) from today with one from 500 years ago just isn't reasonable for the reasons given. To then say that it was the idea of selling labor and products (capitalism) that caused the long work weeks, based on a comparison that is deeply flawed, is a good example of that exaggeration.
One of the things inherent in capitalism is that a person can be a specialist, be really good, at only two or three things. They can be very good at spinning thread, they can be very good at weaving cloth. They cannot also be very good at sewing clothing, creating scissors (knives?) or needles, transporting finished clothing, making measuring devices, etc. So one spins, one sews, the blacksmith makes scissors, the carpenter makes the folding rule, etc. and commerce (capitalism) is born. And because everyone is very good at their task, there is more clothing for fewer hours worked than there would be otherwise. They even have enough left to sell to buy groceries, made by an expert farmer!
So rather than going through the web, searching for "proof" that selling labor is evil and anyone buying it is even more so, it might pay to simply sit back and think about what is being said and search through that for inconsistencies or other things that common sense says isn't working. Like working 20 hours per week for all the things that we have.
Wow. Will get back to you later. I am inclined to ask though, how stupid do you think we are.
The things you mention were considered work in those days. I also live in Africa and see how indigenous people live.
Because you live near a "farm " in Africa obviously doesn't enlighten you to what in reality was an eighteen hour day for the "worker " of pre-industrial age in America or anywhere . 20 hour week ?, You'd better find another library , your source of info is sorely lacking any sense of reality . For the agrarian age in America "dawn to dusk " was but the time one spent on outdoors labor , all other chores waited for the darkness and the indoors.
Google Dunning Kruger Effect. Impossible to talk to people who don't know the difference between academic scholarship and their own opinions. The documents I presented were from an Ivy League University.
The ahorseback effect :
Ever heard of the term " absent minded professor " ? That about explains it all to me . If I were you I would be very careful generally associating intellectualism with much in the way of intelligence . I know , that confuses many people who haven't lived long enough in this world. Point , If you've been around awhile , you certainly will meet many, many extremely intellectual people who ,quite frankly , know little at all .
http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipma … 641f002740
Success has more to do with sociopathy and pschopath than intelligence. That's because people who strive for success don't care who they trample on, who they hurt, insult, belitttle, etc. One doesn't have to be very bright to be 'successful' in this world. One just has to be lacking in moral norms.
And what has any of it to do with the fact that the left wants wealth re-distribution and this thread somehow promotes that ideology ? I know , as long as wealth is imaged as immoral somehow , you win . Point being , so what if "eight people did own half the worlds wealth "?
They either earned it , stole it , borrowed it or inherited it ...........so what ?
They were considered work. But somehow, even with very low production rates, it only took a few hours to provide for everyone.
You can't see the problem with that? Forget wages, compensation, income, etc. and just consider how many hours of work were necessary to provide basic (very basic) living needs. Food, clothing and shelter. Somehow you seem to think that without tractors and water, without harvesters and hay balers, the farmer in the 14th century could grow as much as a modern farmer.
Somehow a seamstress from that same period could keep up with a modern factory worker, using high speed sewing machines. And somehow a woodcutter using an axe or handsaw kept up with modern chainsaws.
Yes, times were simpler. They didn't have toilets (although the pits still had to be dug...by hand). They didn't have running water...although the water still had to be raised from the well. They didn't have washing machines...although clothing still had to be washed by hand. Nevertheless, they still required that basic food, shelter and clothing and it took a lot more hours to provide it. Hours that someone had to provide - claiming that work weeks were only half of what is required today to provide the same thing with mechanization is silly.
Tell me, Wilderness, have you ever spent time in an academic environment where it's not about what you think, but about scholarship. The link I gave you wasn't about what I thought or what the person who wrote it thought it is information that comes from records kept from 500 years ago, from a 1000 years ago. While America is a very new country, the old world is called the old world precisely because it has been going for somewhere between 5000 and 10,000 years (depending on how far you want to go back.)
So, yes, weaving was considered work, and it was added into the 20 hours odd. And they had ever second day as a public holiday. That's just how life was back then.
I'm also not quite sure why you're bringing capitalism into this. I can only assue that you see everything in terms of capitalism and communism and those are the only two paradigms that exist for you.
Capitalism, incidentally, replaced mercantilsm about 250 years ago and is a fairly recent addition to human economic systems. It was created by the aristocacy in order to keep wealth in the upper echelons. It succeeded very well at that until the Unions came along and people demanded decent working hours, etc.
Trade, of course, has always been with human kind, but then, wer'e not discussing trade either.
What the topic was about was the extreme inequality, where you thoought it would lead, and what one could do about it.
So you can say something like :
1) I don't think it's a bad thing and I think that the inequality will disappear. So we don't have to do anything.
2. I don't think it's a good thing and I think it could lead to civic unrest. So my idea is...
Do you think you can stick to the topic without denegrating me because you think I'm a liberal?
Yes, I have a college degree under my belt. A BS in science, where we were taught to investigate and accept the results, not try and spin them into something they aren't. But what about you - have you lived outside that academic environment, using common sense and reason rather than political slogans?
"So, yes, weaving was considered work, and it was added into the 20 hours odd."
Then the total time devoted to work was far more than it is today. There was far less "free time" to enjoy life rather than provide necessities. We agree on this - what is the purpose of discussing the hours worked for pay, then? You seem to think it is very important to note that jobs consumed a smaller portion of the life then than it does now, but I'm at a loss to garner the point - when total time spent was far more I have a hard time understanding what difference it makes how much was for pay and how much was not.
"I'm also not quite sure why you're bringing capitalism into this."
But I didn't bring it up - you did. "Before capitalism, most people did not work very long hours at all." (a statement you are now backing off of by indicating that the hours were longer, but were often not for pay). "When capitalism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. " - again, something you now indicate is not true.
But if you wish to discuss inequality, we can do that instead.
1) I think inequality is a natural result in the differences in people's abilities, motivation and willingness to work or take risk. It will never disappear, and every society that has tried to eliminate it has failed. At best, a small "adjustment", accomplished by Robin Hood methodologies, may be accomplished but if it goes very far all motivation is removed and the society withers.
I also think that the greed plays a very large part in all of this. It is the nature of the human animal to be dissatisfied with what they have, and if they can get what they want with little to no effort they will do so. Including via armed rebellion and killing.
I also think that you have a tremendous tendency to set aside the aristocracy of medieval Europe. When a Lord does little but eat, sleep and order servants around there is a huge disparity in wealth, but you forget that that was the norm then, that people were just as unequal then as they are now, or even more so.
Finally, I haven't degingrated you. I have poked fun at silly notions like "in the 60s, already, we reached a point where we could produce enough for ourselves and work a 10 to 20 hour a week" (your statement, obviously false unless "enough" means bare survival). "Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure." is another one - while there were (and still are) a few cultures with a great deal of leisure (and nothing else), they are rare and occur only in very specific and friendly environments. It is only in the past 100 years or so that significant amounts of leisure time have become available - before that you agree that it took nearly all of a person's time just to survive.
But what about you - have you lived outside that academic environment, using common sense and reason rather than political slogans?
Often times though, your common sense and reasoning is tainted with political bias, not being as purely objective as you would haveus all believe.
I do agree with your assessment that people generally worked harder rather than less during centuries past. Technology has allowed people to divert their time to different pursuits, some of that being leisure time.
I was told during the Sixties that the 'future' would see 20 hour work weeks. That never happened, it was just that all that was absorbed by productivity gains enjoyed by the capitalist class.
With all the attributes that you use to describe a changing middle class, the reality is that the economics that was the foundation for this group is disappearing due to automation and outsourcing. I don't think that concern about the extent of automation is alarmist, because that where most of middle class jobs derive. The jobs that remain after that is done will have little or no economic value, or require education and training beyond that that is within the reach of most.
"That never happened, it was just that all that was absorbed by productivity gains enjoyed by the capitalist class. "
Be careful - your political bias is showing. Or did you just forget about the doubling of home size, the proliferation of toys like RV's, the increase in paid time off, the massive increase in after school activities, the 2 car (filled) garage, the necessity for storage units everywhere, the giant TV's, the cell phones, the computers and on and on.
Were we content to live with what he had in the 60's we probably could live on 20 hours of work. At least we could if we could find an average job that would hire us for only that time.
Automation is both a boon and a huge concern, yes. On the one hand it makes us far more productive but on the other it means more learning and skills are required to have decent work. I see around us one answer, in the growth of the service industry (lawn care, minor home repair such as painting, additional mechanic work, etc.) but am not satisfied at all that that is the answer we want.
It will be interesting, and either happy or sad, to see what the answer becomes. Will we become a nation of drones, surviving off the efforts of others (it has already started). Will we step to the plate and get better education/skills? Will we stagnate, except for the upper class (already happening) that is willing to get that training or provide unique skills?
What I don't see as the (useful) answer is to do away with that increased production from automation and lower the standard of living as a result. Nor are we (yet) in a position to exist as a nation of leisure time drones - while we may be able to do that one day it is far off.
"That never happened, it was just that all that was absorbed by productivity gains enjoyed by the capitalist class. "
"Be careful - your political bias is showing. Or did you just forget about the doubling of home size, the proliferation of toys like RV's, the increase in paid time off, the massive increase in after school activities, the 2 car (filled) garage, the necessity for storage units everywhere, the giant TV's, the cell phones, the computers and on and on"
Yes, the post WWII e onomic boom was astounding, what we are saying is that that trend is slowing down and beginning to reverse, at this rate succeeding generations will not be as prosperous. You are already hearing much of that over many circles.
"Were we content to live with what he had in the 60's we probably could live on 20 hours of work. At least we could if we could find an average job that would hire us for only that time."
I grew up in the Sixties and I don't remember it being that good. The difference between now and then is that a standard middle class family could live reasonably well with one bread earner. Today, two bread earners are needed to accomplish the same thing, because the cost of living have actually exceeded compensation for middle class workers in the last 50 years.That, with their having the standard pack of toys and perks available at the time. I did not see a bread earner supporting the standard American family with a 'middle class job' on a 20 hour work week.
'Automation is both a boon and a huge concern, yes. On the one hand it makes us far more productive but on the other it means more learning and skills are required to have decent work. I see around us one answer, in the growth of the service industry (lawn care, minor home repair such as painting, additional mechanic work, etc.) but am not satisfied at all that that is the answer we want.'
With the exception of skilled trades, the jobs you speak of would not pay enough to support a family? To maintain the viability of economy in the future, investment into trade schools teaching skills relevant to a 21st century economy are needed, as a conventional college degree is not the ticket to a successful economic life that it once was.
"It will be interesting, and either happy or sad, to see what the answer becomes. Will we become a nation of drones, surviving off the efforts of others (it has already started). Will we step to the plate and get better education/skills? Will we stagnate, except for the upper class (already happening) that is willing to get that training or provide unique skills?"
It takes financial resources to acquire these skills, making more difficult for the young to afford this and attain them will not help. As we old folks recognize that their viability is our viability in the long term. We don't want a situation where only the affluent will have access to education and training. If this is the attitude, then we are doomed to remain on that arc of decline.
"What I don't see as the (useful) answer is to do away with that increased production from automation and lower the standard of living as a result. Nor are we (yet) in a position to exist as a nation of leisure time drones - while we may be able to do that one day it is far off."
Automation is as unavoidable as the sunrise. The question is as it was in previous periods of economic misalignment due to technological change, how do we smoothly get people reoriented and prepared to synchronize with the current era? Unfortunately, work will always be with us in one form or another after all who is going to pay for the soup?
"what we are saying is that that trend is slowing down and beginning to reverse..."
Not sure I can agree that it is reversing, but it is certainly slowing. We've made a very grave error, as a nation and society, in letting our greed for ever more things dictate a refusal to pay reasonable labor costs with the result that we now import everything we use. The question is what to do about it.
"I grew up in the Sixties and I don't remember it being that good."
That's the point - the 60's were not that good, not compared to today. But one earner most certainly can feed a (small) family at that standard of living. They just can't do it with the standard we enjoy today. Don't know about your family, but probably 95% of my families groceries came from garden and hunting - a lot of work, but do that today and you don't need a lot more.
Yes, it takes some money to gain those skills. About the same, in terms of work load, as it did when I went. Which makes it quite possible to obtain...if the desire for a family doesn't override reason. Of course that means that the nice car, the apartment per student, the beer and pizza nights are not part of the package - something few students today will tolerate.
I can foresee the possibility where a handful of people and lots and lots of automation can support a town. We just aren't there by a long shot, meaning that we need a different solution now. I just don't really know what that might be. Deplorable and unacceptable, but it might be that there will be a temporary lower class that simply cannot climb out. Temporary meaning a century or so, not a couple of years, and "lower class" meaning a group that remains relatively static without that continual raising of living standards.
"what we are saying is that that trend is slowing down and beginning to reverse..."
"Not sure I can agree that it is reversing, but it is certainly slowing. We've made a very grave error, as a nation and society, in letting our greed for ever more things dictate a refusal to pay reasonable labor costs with the result that we now import everything we use. The question is what to do about it."
All your points are well taken, Wilderness.
When was there a time when the American consumer did not strive to have more? Expecting people to put a brake on their desire to consume is contradictory to what it is to live in America. If there has been an error, it has been in place since at least since the Twenties.
"That's the point - the 60's were not that good, not compared to today. But one earner most certainly can feed a (small) family at that standard of living. They just can't do it with the standard we enjoy today. Don't know about your family, but probably 95% of my families groceries came from garden and hunting - a lot of work, but do that today and you don't need a lot more."
Even by the 1960s the vast majority of people were urban, not rural, so sustenance materials could not come from hunting or gardening. The example you speak of regarding your 95% was commonplace much earlier. I grew up having television sets, hi-fi and the family car and the family mortgage. Relative to the standards of the time, we all considered ourselves affluent.
"Yes, it takes some money to gain those skills. About the same, in terms of work load, as it did when I went. Which makes it quite possible to obtain...if the desire for a family doesn't override reason. Of course that means that the nice car, the apartment per student, the beer and pizza nights are not part of the package - something few students today will tolerate"
We spoke about this before and your college experience was far more spartan than most. I think that most people will go to school with the resources they have and do not expect pizza and beer as part of the curriculum.
"I can foresee the possibility where a handful of people and lots and lots of automation can support a town. We just aren't there by a long shot, meaning that we need a different solution now. I just don't really know what that might be. Deplorable and unacceptable, but it might be that there will be a temporary lower class that simply cannot climb out. Temporary meaning a century or so, not a couple of years, and "lower class" meaning a group that remains relatively static without that continual raising of living standards."
The problem is if that lower class becomes too broad and remains an economic prison for too many then ultimately the security of the rest of us will be at risk.
Yes, of course the American public wants more. That desire, coupled with the pretense that it didn't matter if jobs were lost, is what put us in the place we currently occupy. It is that short-sightedness, not the desire to work more and get more, that has caused the problem.
Urban - that depends on what you call urban. I lived in a small town of 10,000, but was that "urban"? Because if it wasn't, I'd have to say that the "vast majority" were urban in the 60's is false. Even today, with the growth of mega-cities it only approaches that number. But that's rather irrelevant - if you wish to live like the 60's, with gardening, a cow in the back yard and hunting for meat it is still quite possible. You just can't do it in those megalopolis's.
"I think that most people will go to school with the resources they have and do not expect pizza and beer as part of the curriculum."
Here we will disagree, for I think that college has become as much play yard as education.
Defining the "lower class" as without 10X the luxuries, regardless of income, that people had in the 60's doesn't make it so. In actuality, "lower class" means the bottom 1/4th of income (or thereabouts), not some arbitrarily defined luxury limit. Given that, the lower class cannot expand.
"Where on earth did I say that the hours were longer?"
"When capitalism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. "
"So, yes, weaving was considered work, and it was added into the 20 hours "
"Until the Industrial Revolution, human beings worked a 20 hour week. "
"Before capitalism, most people did not work very long hours at all."
Whichever way you meant that, at least one of these quotes is applicable.
"I have not ONCE attacked your ideas."
Really? "Tell me, Wilderness, have you ever spent time in an academic environment where it's not about what you think, but about scholarship." "You appear not to have the intelligence to differentiate..."
"Absolutely all my information comes from books, from studies,... "
So it has. Unfortunately the conclusions and insinuations are coming directly from you. Such as the idea that the total individual work load in the 14th century was half what it is now. Or that in the American 60's one could live a fine life on 20 hours per week (I lived that period and location and know better).
Have you given up, then, on the claim that our work load is higher today than it was 500 years ago?
Wer'e done. Not bothering to read anything else you ever write again. I find you unkind. Rediculing people is not a nice thing to do and I don't deserve it. And I don't find you particularly informed. Goodbye. I won't ever read anything you write again.
Probably best. You have shown yourself to be very closed to any ideas but your own, both here and in your previous stay at HP. As those ideas are very liberal, based on the quaint concept that people somehow have an innate right to what others have, and are opposite my own views, there isn't much to be gained on either side.
Thank you, Wilderness, for proving that you are a troll, and that you use classic trolling techniques. Thank you, also for admitting that you recognise who I am from my last incarnation. Now I don't have to prove it.
Thank you also for proving that you are off-topic, that you are assuming what I believe, and for accusing me of things I haven't claimed. Makes it so much eaiser for me to prove my case.
Tess. I have been following your comments, and to this observer you have not proven 'your case', or that you have been trolled. You have proven that you can not stand up to criticisms of your perspective.
Maybe your next reincarnation will offer more credible rebuttals. When you discuss human nature, you need to offer more than examples of what other mammals are perceived to do. In the animal kingdom you referred to, the top dog takes the prize and the dregs go to the rest. Can you dispute that?
GA Anderson. What is it I wanted to prove? I don't recall wanting to prove anythng.
I asked for opinions on a statement. These were the questions.
"I have two questions for you, and I would ask that you consider the world, not just your particular country. 1. What do you think is going to happen.
2. How can we fix the situation?"
Nobody can deny the current inexisting inequality. If you disagree, I'm sorry, but you would be in the minority and considered out of touch with reality. My question were "Do you think inequality acceptable, and if not, what would you do about it?"
There is absolutely nothing for me to prove. What I have here is trolling by Wilderness which I have reported.
Hello again Tess,
As I followed your discussion, I did see the questions you posed, but I also saw that the premise you based your questions on was challenged. I think it is unrealistic to ask for an honest opinion from a contested premise.
That there is great inequality in income, (wealth distribution), was not questioned, it was your offered facts - that pointedly inferred a cause - capitalism, to support your posed questions that were.
What you were asked to prove was your foundation for those questions. I don't think that was an unreasonable challenge. So, I do think you had something to prove - the truth of your premise.
Tess, the conservative CNBC has a helpful way to describe what you mean:
"Eight billionaires from around the globe are as rich as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world's population, according to a report published by Oxfam on Monday."
Yes, you are quite right. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. My mind was ahead of my pen. I actually wrote that on facebook and on Google Plus, but not on hubpages. I can't go back and correct it. Oh, well, I guess I' human. I make mistakes.
However, the gist of it is inequality, where it leads generally and asking really where it will lead specifically considering the current leadership, trends, etc.
What do you think?
They are the new royalty with massive power to bend laws in their favor. Democracy is declining quickly.
I think those numbers are low. They are only estimates based on identifiable holdings.
The list also leaves out Putin, who many think is actually the richest person in the world.
That's really interesting. I did read when the scandal broke about various tax havens about Putin's wealth, but don't know too much about it.
Yes, I also think democracy is on the decline. I think we are entering a Dysopian period. Not sure how it will play out, though. That's why I have posted in three different places to ascertain what people think. Most people don't really extrapolate from current events to see what the future brings. I've been reading dozens of think tanks and futurology sites.
On one hand, it's all very exciting. The technology that is coming online currently and in the next 5 to 20 years will change our lives in ways we could not imagine. However, there is going to be a cost, and all think tanks said that the inequality will increase even more.
The pentagon did a video some years ago that said that civil unrest will increase and I wonder if that is why the police have been miliarized in the States, and why they are thinking about it in the UK/
The articles you linked to say "World's 8 richest men own as much wealth as poorest half of world's population." That's not the same thing as owning half the world's wealth. The bottom 50% of the population own much less than half the world's wealth because wealth is not uniformly distributed. If you sit down and think about it for a bit, you'll see that the two things are different
Anyway, since you're interested in wealth distribution, Savills of the UK estimated the total value of all real estate on Earth to be 217 trillion $USD in this interesting report:
http://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/global-re … s-2016.pdf
Statistics and facts are so frustrating. Eight men own 50% of the world's wealth. Hardly a surprise. Hasn't it been this way since we started to measure wealth? In a few centuries time it could be that 10 women own 60% of the wealth? And most of those women will come from China or India. Measurement of wealth is another puzzle - only economists and accountans can really work it out - we just see the end results.
The few control the many. That is fundamentally wrong a part of my mind says, but another part declares that this is the way the ant's nest works, for good or for bad. Here in the UK around 7% of the population own 84% of the wealth, which inspired a theatre company to form back in the day - 7:84 - a socialist venture which lasted a decade or so before the market forces undermined such ideals. And we've always had the Queen (and sometimes a KIng), who owns incalculable wealth, including a diamond which could probably buy a medium sized country. Right now large parts of London, the classy bits, are owned by Russian oligarchs, who buy up property, keep it standing and wait for the markets to improve. The world's elite pull the strings, sponsor politicians, the military, the media, to keep the status quo. Occasionally a mini revolution might break out here and there with the aim of getting rid of such inequalities and corruption but history shows that sooner or later powermongers, manipulators and psychopaths rise to the top and the sycle starts all over again, in a slightly different guise.
Personally I think it's not a good thing and in an ideal world I would love for the wealth to be spread around a bit more! I mean, how much does a rich person need? I guess that's the same as asking how long is a piece of string? Rich people always want more, it goes without saying, although I did hear of a Californian CEO recently who decided to give up his annual bonus and draw an equal salary to that of his workers. A minor miracle.
Poor people will always want more, won't they? Who wouldn't want to give poorer people a fair share and help them get on in the world? How many well meaning politicians have come along promising to close the gap between rich and poor? And how long before the markets and corporate investment and influence begin to make these political statements mere rhetoric?
How many politicians have come along and promised a fairer tax system? Tax the rich to kingdom come would be a good thing wouldn't it? Close all the loopholes and clamp down on the tax dodgers. That would bring in more money for public services, for the poorer people to benefit. But what in reality happens? These idealistic notions get b uried in goverment processes and inhouse bickerings. Lawyers are hired to help giant companies avoid paying tax. Politicians are left spinning stories, the public remain sceptical and the rich manage to get richer.
In an ideal world I could give you the perfect answer, I could name a country where wealth is distributed equally to everyone but I don't think such a country exists. Even Sweden struggles with wealth inequality : http://econlife.com/2016/04/swedish-wea … tribution/
Your question is best answered by an accountant or someone who knows about world finances and how markets work.
First you have to look at the culture that breeds inequality. Other mammals have leaders, but the leaders do not take virtually everything from the other animals in their packs.
Archeologists have also recently unearthed a village in which there were no hierarchies.
I would say that this is more a social system that has been passed down from parents to children and is indoctrinated by the community we live in.
People are taught that they will be better respected and admired if they achieve wealth and status. That is why they will do anything to get it. I am not alone in thinking that. Alaine De Botton has mentioned it several times as well (School of Life, London.).
You said, "I did hear of a Californian CEO recently who decided to give up his annual bonus and draw an equal salary to that of his workers."
San Franciscan company who paid everybody in his company (including himself) $70,000 per year. He was immediately outlawed by many of his clients because the was setting an example they didn't want to follow. The company is still going. The staff are highly motivated and they are struggling along.
Until human beings are socialized differently with a different set of values, as far as I can see, the status quo will not change.
I don't think it will continue for much longer than a another century, though. Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse, shows repeated scenarios where people simply died out. I think the same will happen to us.
Why do so many people have this issue with the "inequalities of wealth " , And yet ,Can't see the difference enough to recognize that the "smarter" person is going to be ,more than likely , the richer one ? Isn't this a direct product of I.Q. , genetics , personal drive , social standing , etc......
We are neither born equal in intellect nor economic standing , we are not all born with the same drive for success nor ability to rise through the masses for either gaining in riches nor engaging intellect with economics.
by Joe Badtoe6 years ago
The wealthiest 300 people in the world have more money than the total income of the poorest 3 billion in the world.Three hundred people have more money than three billion!!Does this mean capitalism is fair and works as...
by sahbam164 years ago
Is there great gap between wealth and poverty? How should we go about reducing it? Why is there such a gap?
by Doug Hughes7 years ago
Last year there were 1.4 million personal bankruptcies in the US. According to a study by the American Journal of Medicine in 2008, 62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical costs. An astounding 80% of those people HAD...
by rickylicea4 years ago
Are you opposed to the idea of the unequal distribution of wealth?Do you think that the rich are rich by exploiting people or by providing services?Do you think that we can have civilization without inequality?Do rich...
by AnnCee6 years ago
He says "we've" allowed a few rich people to take all the money and keep it. And "we" need to get it back from them.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/really- … from-them/Anti-capitalism in...
by mortimerjackson5 years ago
They say that every "ism" has its ups and downs. In what regard do you think that economic, and/or perhaps nationalistic fascism can be considered a good thing?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.