Why "x% of people have y% of the wealth" is irrelevant.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. I think the huge differences are caused by the states legislation regarding the currency and the massive fraud perpetrated by the banking system with fractional reserve banking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more.

[BPA234]

Here's a few. THe first couple are definitions, then there are several links to graphs, articles etc. Again, is there a chance you are confused between "standard of living" and some other measurement?

http://www.answers.com/topic/standard-of-living

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar..._United_States

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/s...dard.living.us

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/rstec...dia---2002.pdf

http://www.cato.org/new/09-04/09-20-04r.html

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-96...&size=LARGE

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
The pie is getting bigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what

[ QUOTE ]
It does not matter if 3% of the people own 90% of the wealth (numbers from another thread which I will not bother to investigate or dispute, since it is irrelevent regardless of what the numbers actually are), if the standard of living of the individuals continues to go up, which it does in a capitalist society.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying the standard of living can't go up without 3% of the people owning 90% of the wealth?

your condition in no way shows that it "does not matter"

[ QUOTE ]
Wealth turns over

[/ QUOTE ]

to what degree this is true, I don't know, but so what.

[ QUOTE ]
Concentrated wealth is good for consumers. Henry Ford started out with a capital investment of $25,000. By 1947 he was worth $1 billion. The reason he was worth $1 billion is because he provided consumers with what they wanted, a high quality inexpensive automobile. Better yet, he could provide high quality inexpensive automobiles because of the high productivity of his plants, which was only possible because of, you guessed it, a large capital accumulation; i.e. the factories and machineries whose value represented most of his $1 billion of "wealth". I.e. the vast majority of the "wealth" that all those evil capitalists have is the capital stock that they put to work for YOU. I don't have to own Ford to benefit from all of that capital. I don't even have to be a stockholder. All I have to do is buy a car, at far higher quality than I could build myself, and at far lower cost, and I gain the MASSIVE benefit of all that accumulated capital and productivity. I don't have to own Exxon's oil derricks, refineries, pipelines and trucks to gain the benefit of all that accumulated capital. All I need do is buy the gallon of gas at far lower cost and higher quality than I could ever hope to provide myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

i hope you didn't suppose that you just proved that it's better for all of us if 1% of the population has 25% of the wealth or more. in any case, as I'm sure has been mentioned, the reason you hear the "x% of the people have y% of the wealth" talked about a lot is because the gap between the rich and poor is growing.

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen this tired old horse trotted out so many times it's pathetic. It's time to finally put it out of my misery.


[/ QUOTE ]

not even remotely close

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure the sociology standard of living includes metrics like leisure time, home ownership, health, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and I'm pretty sure most discussion about it is still in reference to how much cheap crap you can buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't you have more leisure time, a nice home, and better healthcare if you had more purchasing power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly, yes.

[xorbie]

The problem with x/y, as I've said, is that it can lead to very bad equilibria. Power concentrated in the hands of a very few is always a pretty bad thing, hard to think that people might disagree with this.

[ctj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The pie is getting bigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what

[ QUOTE ]
It does not matter if 3% of the people own 90% of the wealth (numbers from another thread which I will not bother to investigate or dispute, since it is irrelevent regardless of what the numbers actually are), if the standard of living of the individuals continues to go up, which it does in a capitalist society.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying the standard of living can't go up without 3% of the people owning 90% of the wealth?

your condition in no way shows that it "does not matter"

[ QUOTE ]
Wealth turns over

[/ QUOTE ]

to what degree this is true, I don't know, but so what.

[ QUOTE ]
Concentrated wealth is good for consumers. Henry Ford started out with a capital investment of $25,000. By 1947 he was worth $1 billion. The reason he was worth $1 billion is because he provided consumers with what they wanted, a high quality inexpensive automobile. Better yet, he could provide high quality inexpensive automobiles because of the high productivity of his plants, which was only possible because of, you guessed it, a large capital accumulation; i.e. the factories and machineries whose value represented most of his $1 billion of "wealth". I.e. the vast majority of the "wealth" that all those evil capitalists have is the capital stock that they put to work for YOU. I don't have to own Ford to benefit from all of that capital. I don't even have to be a stockholder. All I have to do is buy a car, at far higher quality than I could build myself, and at far lower cost, and I gain the MASSIVE benefit of all that accumulated capital and productivity. I don't have to own Exxon's oil derricks, refineries, pipelines and trucks to gain the benefit of all that accumulated capital. All I need do is buy the gallon of gas at far lower cost and higher quality than I could ever hope to provide myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

i hope you didn't suppose that you just proved that it's better for all of us if 1% of the population has 25% of the wealth or more. in any case, as I'm sure has been mentioned, the reason you hear the "x% of the people have y% of the wealth" talked about a lot is because the gap between the rich and poor is growing.

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen this tired old horse trotted out so many times it's pathetic. It's time to finally put it out of my misery.


[/ QUOTE ]

not even remotely close

[/ QUOTE ]

3% of the people do NOT own 90% of the wealth. As I said earlier in a similar thread:


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
..It depends on who you count as rich. If we define rich as "the richest 5%" or something, then yes, they do have more wealth than the bottom 95%. In the context of this thread, I was thinking of rich as someone with enough wealth to control society and screw over everyone else, as some people claim would happen in an AC society.

The top 1% of people in the US control 1/3 of the wealth (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html). While this is a lot, it should be remembered that this includes lots of doctors and corporate vps worth a few million or so, and very, very few ultra-billionaire Bill Gates types.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a mis-representation: the link actually states that the top 1% control 33% of the privately-held wealth in the U.S (down slightly from 1983). The assets held by governments (at all levels) must dwarf those in private hands. If we summed up the gov't assets and allocated 1/300,000,000 to each individual, the distribution of total wealth wouldn't be so top-heavy (although even the distribution of private wealth, as shown, follows an 80-20 rule - i.e, not particularly unusual).

Furthermore, each individual's 'balance sheet' should really include the value of the annuity the gov't owes them (Social Security/Medicare)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

I do believe that incentives matter. However, I believe that at a certain level of income, non-economic incentives completely dwarf economic ones. The result is a backward-bending labor supply curve. The marginal utility of wealth becomes so low that no amount of wealth can compensate for lost time.

I am reminded of a post in the John Edwards thread a couple days ago in which one of your fellow-ACists wrote:
Maybe I'm just selfish but if I had $10 million plus a sweet wife I'd retire and spend time with her instead of running for President.

This person has a backward bending supply curve! The greater his income, the less he will work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incidentally, people who think like this never make $10M, so backward-bending supply curves aren't useful as practical constructs.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a few. THe first couple are definitions, then there are several links to graphs, articles etc. Again, is there a chance you are confused between "standard of living" and some other measurement?

http://www.answers.com/topic/standard-of-living

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar..._United_States

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/s...dard.living.us

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/rstec...dia---2002.pdf

http://www.cato.org/new/09-04/09-20-04r.html

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...amp;size=LARGE


[/ QUOTE ]

didn't see it in your links.

So when did it peak? is this year the best? if so, how much better off is the average american today than in say 1972?

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason he was worth $1 billion is because he provided consumers with what they wanted, a high quality inexpensive automobile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it was the workers in the factories provided the cars, (by "mixing their labor" with them).

Ford merely profited by transferring some of the value of their labor to himself.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason he was worth $1 billion is because he provided consumers with what they wanted, a high quality inexpensive automobile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it was the workers in the factories provided the cars, (by "mixing their labor" with them).

Ford merely profited by transferring some of the value of their labor to himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because without Henry Ford, they would have figured out how to make their labor worth that much on their own.