Did the wealth of the poorest people rise proportionally as well? I would bet not. We are an era of extreme wealth inequality and it's clearly horrible for society.
In the US, unions had a good year, but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up.
I wouldn't be surprised if wages in the parts of the global population that's currently industrializing (parts of China and India) went up by way more than 43% though.
One thing I've realized in recent years (thanks to silicon valley stock options): It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall, and maybe split it over two tax years. However, staying in that bracket is much harder; you need to have a windfall every year (so, be a successful VC) or be an executive.
For that reason, I'd be interested to see income percentile statistics broken out over a 10 year period vs. annually. Some people summarize this effect with the acronym HENRY (High Earner, Not Rich Yet).
There is no universe in which the poorest get the same economic benefits as the rich. If the rich saw that happening, they would label it a "market inefficiency" and make it go away (to their benefit, of course).
The poorest people are likely living on the streets. It's a different problem problem, as they may well not be engaging in the economy at all. So it's a bit of a silly comparison.
Would you be willing to articulate why wealth inequality is bad for society? I am fairly certain that wealth inequality globally is higher than it was in 2000. At the same time, well the poorest globally are doing much much better on average.
In my mindset as long as the median is improving and the poorest are improving, the ratio of rich to poor isn't important and isn't clearing a bad thing if the inequality is increasing. You seem to think otherwise, why?
increase in money supply helps people who are using debt to leverage into assets. Most large companies do this to some extent, and the upper middle class and rich people are heavily invested into equities.
People who are not levered into assets are worse off after an increase in money supply.
Deficit spending necessitates increasing M2, and in turn is a wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the rich.
I think it is more the consequence of intervention than not sharing wealth.
I do not have evidence but there are lots of regulations, talking about Spain now, but also in Europe, that leave small players de-facto out by apparently good intentions and make big players almost monopolize markets. Banking system, energy are two examples in Spain but there are lots of small business that get smashed by the fact that by not being profitable enough, causing them economic damage makes them extinguish. Lots of small business have been shutting down in the last few years yet they keep increasing tax rates. Special mention to freelancers, the most mercilessly smashed group here, taking into account that you often cannot control what is coming in the next few months wealth-wise, since that is relatively irregular and self-sustained.
The system is built in harmful ways for most of us.
My wealth rose by 100% last year, as I was saving throughout the year from near zero while matching these returns with low fee ETFs everyone has access to.
I personally believe many of these dynasties do have some unfair and systematic advantages, but this article doesn’t have evidence to support that conclusion.
Most wealth is the integral of a function based off of predicted future profits and predicted interest rates. It's naturally going to be highly volatile compared to people's wages or home values.
no, they didn’t have any savings to begin with and everything they bought depreciates in value
it was actually very cumbersome for me to find people that knew anything else, when I was younger everyone I was around only prided themselves in buying depreciating material things. I’m aware of how pervasive that mentality can be, could be considered a distinct culture.
I'm guessing they lived lives of incredible luxury with no worries about money in any sense other than recreationally. Just like the year before and the year after.
thinkingtoilet|2 years ago
hedora|2 years ago
I wouldn't be surprised if wages in the parts of the global population that's currently industrializing (parts of China and India) went up by way more than 43% though.
One thing I've realized in recent years (thanks to silicon valley stock options): It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall, and maybe split it over two tax years. However, staying in that bracket is much harder; you need to have a windfall every year (so, be a successful VC) or be an executive.
For that reason, I'd be interested to see income percentile statistics broken out over a 10 year period vs. annually. Some people summarize this effect with the acronym HENRY (High Earner, Not Rich Yet).
andrewmutz|2 years ago
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/
crazygringo|2 years ago
jvanderbot|2 years ago
A wealth growth of 0->1 is infinite %.
toenail|2 years ago
glimshe|2 years ago
robertlagrant|2 years ago
Veelox|2 years ago
Would you be willing to articulate why wealth inequality is bad for society? I am fairly certain that wealth inequality globally is higher than it was in 2000. At the same time, well the poorest globally are doing much much better on average.
In my mindset as long as the median is improving and the poorest are improving, the ratio of rich to poor isn't important and isn't clearing a bad thing if the inequality is increasing. You seem to think otherwise, why?
VirusNewbie|2 years ago
People who are not levered into assets are worse off after an increase in money supply.
Deficit spending necessitates increasing M2, and in turn is a wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the rich.
germandiago|2 years ago
I do not have evidence but there are lots of regulations, talking about Spain now, but also in Europe, that leave small players de-facto out by apparently good intentions and make big players almost monopolize markets. Banking system, energy are two examples in Spain but there are lots of small business that get smashed by the fact that by not being profitable enough, causing them economic damage makes them extinguish. Lots of small business have been shutting down in the last few years yet they keep increasing tax rates. Special mention to freelancers, the most mercilessly smashed group here, taking into account that you often cannot control what is coming in the next few months wealth-wise, since that is relatively irregular and self-sustained.
The system is built in harmful ways for most of us.
lucaspm98|2 years ago
I personally believe many of these dynasties do have some unfair and systematic advantages, but this article doesn’t have evidence to support that conclusion.
Aunche|2 years ago
yieldcrv|2 years ago
it was actually very cumbersome for me to find people that knew anything else, when I was younger everyone I was around only prided themselves in buying depreciating material things. I’m aware of how pervasive that mentality can be, could be considered a distinct culture.
lacrimacida|2 years ago
un-devmox|2 years ago
ordersofmag|2 years ago
Racing0461|2 years ago
SV_BubbleTime|2 years ago
We have rampant inflation - why would you not expect the NUMBER attached to the stock market to go up?