Talk-Polywell.org

Every time I see one of these How the wealthy live" I see something seriously wrong and it's not what most people might think. I look at the numbers and think just how small the really wealthy community is. You have to go down to 50 million to get 98,000, on the entire planet. 50 million is a medium sized company, with probably 50 employees or so. That does not represent great wealth. :
http://www.businessinsider.com/where-th ... ve-2013-10

Jccarlton wrote:Every time I see one of these How the wealthy live" I see something seriously wrong and it's not what most people might think. I look at the numbers and think just how small the really wealthy community is. You have to go down to 50 million to get 98,000, on the entire planet. 50 million is a medium sized company, with probably 50 employees or so. That does not represent great wealth. :
http://www.businessinsider.com/where-th ... ve-2013-10

You do realize you're talking about wealth distribution now (the noun, not the verb)?
That's one in about 74,000 worldwide, or one in 7000 in the US.

What do you consider "great wealth"? Do you think more people should be that wealthy?

If you're right it's because there are too many ultra wealthy.

Personally I don't see the point of all this. There's plenty for everyone if a few ultra greedy didn't insist on proving they're better than everyone else by hogging it all. The worst thing is they could give up most of it and their lifestyle wouldn't change one iota.

I will also point out that there were a lot more wealthy before 2000.

Just sayin'.

Wealth is a relative term. Whether your wealthy or not is relative to the people around you. Someone making 60,000 USD a year isn't wealthy by any means in the USA, that same person transposed into the Philippines is suddenly wealthy. Wealth is really about the ratio of total income to potentially disposable income.

palladin9479 wrote:Wealth is a relative term. Whether your wealthy or not is relative to the people around you. Someone making 60,000 USD a year isn't wealthy by any means in the USA, that same person transposed into the Philippines is suddenly wealthy. Wealth is really about the ratio of total income to potentially disposable income.

This sounds like a copout to me.

They stole it from us, is what happened.

Schneibster wrote:

palladin9479 wrote:Wealth is a relative term. Whether your wealthy or not is relative to the people around you. Someone making 60,000 USD a year isn't wealthy by any means in the USA, that same person transposed into the Philippines is suddenly wealthy. Wealth is really about the ratio of total income to potentially disposable income.

This sounds like a copout to me.

They stole it from us, is what happened.

If you don't buy anything they can't get a penny. The poorer YOU are the more you stick it to them. YOU should be living on the street. That'll show them.

MSimon wrote:

Schneibster wrote:

palladin9479 wrote:Wealth is a relative term. Whether your wealthy or not is relative to the people around you. Someone making 60,000 USD a year isn't wealthy by any means in the USA, that same person transposed into the Philippines is suddenly wealthy. Wealth is really about the ratio of total income to potentially disposable income.

This sounds like a copout to me.

They stole it from us, is what happened.

If you don't buy anything they can't get a penny. The poorer YOU are the more you stick it to them. YOU should be living on the street. That'll show them.

I got a better idea: vote to take it from them with the police and the army. Since the police and army aren't rich either I bet they go along with it.

I'd make the ultra rich nice medals for their patriotic assistance with trickle down economics. They could even rehabilitate Raygun Ronnie again after Iran/Contra. Even Ronnie was in favor of redistribution of wealth; he just imagined everyone spent it as freely as he did. He may have been the Great Obfuscator but nobody ever accused him of being tightfisted.

See the thing is most of the rich would remain rich; and all of the ultra rich would still be rich. There just wouldn't be any ultra rich any more.

palladin9479 wrote:Wealth is a relative term. Whether your wealthy or not is relative to the people around you. Someone making 60,000 USD a year isn't wealthy by any means in the USA, that same person transposed into the Philippines is suddenly wealthy. Wealth is really about the ratio of total income to potentially disposable income.

What is "potentially disposable income"?

It's a matter of expectations. For the local population that person would be wealthy. But that person would now have limited access to the goods and services they're used to, so they may consider themselves less wealthy than before despite being able to buy more basic goods.