Top 1% 'richer than rest of world'

[Tom Joad]

Is it time for a revolution?

I think so.

The richest 1% of people will own more than the combined wealth of the other 99% by next year

A research paper released by Oxfam suggests the richest 1% have seen their share of global assets rise from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year - with an average worth of 2.7 million dollars (£1.8 million) each.

Read more

[donquixote99]

A quiet revolution, hopefully. The nosier a revolution is, the worse it turns out, for the most part....

[Rajoo]

Wages need to go up and continue to do so in order to create a larger market of consumers. Private companies will not do it simply because their competition will hold back to keep their prices lower. So this needs to be mandated by the government. And who is going to do this? The GOP, never. The Dems? They are too close to WS.

So a revolution is needed but what is this going to look like? Not a clue.

[whell]

Do you suppose the timing of this news story is coincidental to Obama's SOTU message about a tax increase on the "wealthy"?

Naaahhh! Couldn't be.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Do you suppose the timing of this news story is coincidental to Obama's SOTU message about a tax increase on the "wealthy"?

Naaahhh! Couldn't be.

Sure, it could be. Would that make it untrue?

John

[finnbow]

This type of analysis presumes that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the nation/world (i.e., that wealth distribution is a zero-sum game) and that one's ability to make money or acquire wealth automatically inhibits another's capacity to do so. AFAIK, Bill Gates never inhibited my ability to make a good living. Furthermore, Bill Gates employed thousands of people and made a bunch of them wealthy. What's wrong with that?

This is not to say I don't support changes in the tax code aimed at higher effective rates for the wealthy, but I'm not sure it will have any real impact on the wealth distribution described in the OP. In a nutshell, I support taxing earned and unearned income equally, something the GOP (and their wealthy patrons) insist will kill the economy. It never has and never will.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Bill Gates never inhibited my ability to make a good living.

Nevertheless, the Waltons inhibit the ability of their employees to earn a living wage while, in the aggregate, becoming the richest person in the world.

Furthermore, Bill Gates employed thousands of people and made a bunch of them wealthy. What's wrong with that?

See above, re: the Walton family.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Nevertheless, the Waltons inhibit the ability of their employees to earn a living wage while, in the aggregate, becoming the richest person in the world.

I support a higher minimum wage, indexed to inflation such that we don't have it as a perennial argument. That said, the wages paid to their employees isn't what created Walton's wealth. It has to do with the number of people who shop there, the efficiency of their inventory system, and their ability to pressure suppliers to keep prices down.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That said, the wages paid to their employees isn't what created Walton's wealth. It has to do with the number of people who shop there, the efficiency of their inventory system, and their ability to pressure suppliers to keep prices down.

More proof that you are a closet bagger.

When are you going to man up and come out Finn?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That said, the wages paid to their employees isn't what created Walton's wealth.

I never said it was but their policies are calculated to keep the bulk of their employees in penurious circumstances and essentially force the taxpayers into the position of subsidizing Wal-Mart's personnel expense.

John