Why do the richest 10% own 85% of the worlds wealth?

Scroll to see replies

That 10% includes everyone in this thread. Whether it's right or wrong is somewhat irrelevant - you're part of the system, too.

Reply 61

tripleeagle

Original post by darknessbehold

Because 49% have to put up with the person 51% voted in. Basically means a big F*** you to the 49% who didn't vote for the winner.

That's how democracy 'works'...

If 51% vote for Party A and 49% vote for Party B, the 49% get screwed over. But it works the same the other way 'round: if 51% vote for Party B and 49% for Party A, the 49% get screwed over.

It's called The Tyranny of the Majority and it is why we need Burkean Representation. It is why there is no such thing as real democracy, sadly.

Reply 62

No Future

Because we wouldn't have such comfortable lifestyles if the wealth was shared out to the poor in all the 3rd world countries

Reply 63

rowzee

Original post by f00ddude

and the reason for the inbalance is largely due to third world countries, nothing to do with capitalism really, just them not being as developed, and no westerners didnt cause this, Africans still lived in simple huts and tribes when we first interacted with them, and at that point we had cars and ships and huge manafacturing industry

So what about America on its own, for example? What is the reason for this imbalance:
"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth).

Reply 64

wactm

Original post by MillerTraub

What people object to is the amount of luck necessary to 'make it to the top' if you come from a worse background.

Wow. I guess your one of those people who do nothing but the lottery in hopes of becoming rich? Im from a very poor background and I make a decent bit of passive income from my online ventures, more than my parents earn working full time. After Uni I will make my first million by 23.

Those who believe that luck is a big factor will never achieve the financial success they hope for until they change that belief.

Reply 65

SFsucks

Original post by tripleeagle

In this country its not even that, we still have the dreaded FPTP system AKA Party A 35%, Party B 30% Party C 25%, Party D 10%.

Reply 66

SFsucks

Original post by wactm

Well if what you have said is true, well done.

Reply 67

f00ddude

Original post by rowzee

some people work harder than other, some get lucky
someone unemployed simply doesnt deserve to make the same amount as steve jobs or bill gates
someone in a supermarket checkout is the same, Anyone one could do that job, not anyone could run a company dealing with figures, building their way to the top takes hard work and is dam stressful
and remeber we need these people, the top 17% in the uk pay more tax than the rest earn

oh, and you really shouldn't use figures that are 10years old!!

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 68

Mann18

Original post by Steevee

course. But that's the nature of infrastructure. Equally, without the CEO there would be no distribution network, no global chain with goods from all over the world, allowing a succsesful buisiness to employ those people. So without the minimum wage workers, the top echelons would have nothing. But the same is true the other way round. Something which people convieniently forget all the time.

So what you're saying is, without each other, the system wouldn't work? So why does one side deserve to get so much more than the other? The argument isn't "We deserve more than you because without us, you'd have nothing" it's simply "Without us, you'd have nothing, we deserve more than we get currently/the same as you."

As for their pay gap, it's reflective of the work they do, the exclusivity of the field, experience and so on.

This part I agree on, supply and demand and all that, but if the people stacking shelves were afforded similar opportunities to the others, we may well not have that situation.

And I know people that are chavvy scum with exactly the same background as me. You can't use it as an excuse. The fact is they are scum. It's not their background, it's them. And yes, of course I realise rich kids have more oppurtunities than poor kids. But poor kids are provided for, I know working class people studying at Russel Group universities, as I'm sure everyone on here does

I'm going to be one of those kids, but I can absolutely see where people have fallen into that trap. I know people, like you do, who are from the same/similar background to me who have turned out awfully. But ask yourself, if a rich 18 year old (by which I mean has rich family) didn't do well at school and can't find a job, would they turn out like people labelled "chav?" No, 100% not, as their family would "help" them as they have the means to. Notice I'm not saying that all poor kids with poor qualifications who are unemployed are "chavs" just that the majority of "chavs" fit that background.

It's about hard work. And you shouldn't resent someone with rich parents who has it easier, their parents worked hard, succeeded and now they, aswell as their parents can reap the rewards. Instead of resenting them, ask yourself why your parents didn't succeed?

Literally, heartbreaking that someone can even think like that.

"I go to a failing inner city school, and I'm unlikely to do anything amazing with my life. I see across the city, kids going to Westminster, their parents worked hard to send them there, so I shouldn't resent the fact that my parents weren't able to do that, seeing as they were most likely born into the exact same situation I find myself in. I suppose I should just keep quiet and accept the lot I've been given, sub-standard though it is."

Obviously I'm not saying you personally. But I do know some people, who dislike certain people because they have life easy because their parents made it from working to middle class in a generation. But I look at their parents, and they were the kind of people happy to stay in hourly paid work their entire life. And there's nothing wrong with that, but don't blame the kid with hard working parents for having a little more.

You have incorrectly attributed wealth to hard work.

Let's start right at the start shall we?

Person A is born into a relatively wealthy family, professional parents, and a nice 3 bedroomed house in Dulwich, London.
Person B is born into a relatively poor family, mother who works part time at ASDA, father who works in an office on minimum wage, lives in a 3 bedroomed terrace on an estate in Liverpool.

Person A goes to a private school, gets AAA in their A-Levels, ends up going to Warwick to study Biology.
Person B goes to a state school, gets BBC in their A-Levels ends up going to Hull to do Biology.

From just the bold part, it looks as though it's obvious that Person A has worked harder, when that may not be truth at all.

This leads onto employment, where Person A gets a better paid job than Person B because their degree is valued more. Person A gets £30,000 a year when they are 30, Person B £17,000, purely due to the sort of employment available to them.

How, has one person worked discernibly harder than the other here?
I'd argue that the hypothetical I just offered isn't so crazy it's not possible either.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 69

Archaos

Far too many people here are confusing 'ambition' with 'greed'. Many rich people worked bloody hard to get where they are, and probably get a bit pissed off when people advocate that their hard earned cash is stripped of them. Before you start saying "what about people born into privilege?" Think of it this way. You've just had a child, and you worked your arse off to get a good job with a nice salary, and you've just managed to buy a nice house. You'd want your kid to have the best upbringing possible, wouldn't you? Oh, but the child hasn't done anything to deserve his privilege, you say. What do you propose, give birth to the kid, and throw him out into the woods and say "you're on your own now son, you have to WORK for your upbringing!" Plus, let's not delve into any *******s about employment being 'exploitation'. Companies provide jobs and generate wealth. Let's not pretend communism/socialism is the answer to achieving some kind of utopia.

99.9% of you are in the top 10%. You all have TVs, fancy mobile phones, nice houses with heat, electricity and plenty of food, access to some of the best education facilities in the world, designer clothes and computers. Don't start pretending you're part of an oppressed underclass living in a dystopian nightmare. If you hate the system so much, are you willing to give up all your luxuries and hard-earned money from your jobs to give to someone worse off than you? I highly doubt it.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 70

ish90an

Original post by baffled_mathman

It's like with everything else, what do you mean by "potential"?

The USSR had astronauts, Doctors, top level scientists etc etc. Didn't these people not reach their "potential"?

Or do you just think "achieving potential" means "achieving money in the bank"?

The USSR's scientific progress was a result of the paranoia it had about America and the huge money the state put into the space wars and the arms race in general and had nothing to do with people getting the opportunity to achieve their potential. If an individual came up with an idea that would be of no benefit in the arms race he would not be getting any support from the state, and since it is the state that controlled the purse strings in the USSR he would be unable to do anything to realise the idea. At least in a capitalist society an individual would not have to only work in whatever field the state wanted to make a living and could go off to do something else.
EDIT: I find it amusing that it is people in Europe that tend to complain most about "fairness" and like to pretend they are part of some oppressed underclass, as if they lived in the 1750s and they were Oliver Twists begging for a bowl of gruel from their masters. The fact is the people complaining most about capitalism are the ones who have had the best of it for so long they have become complacent, and when they talk about "fairness" what they really want is someone else to give away money to the underdeveloped world so they can placate their own guilty conscience. People who live in actual poverty and not "I could only go to Spain instead of Monaco for holiday" have, be it China in the last decade or India in the current, embraced capitalism and achieved great economic growth due to it, and contrary to the opinions expressed here would rather see communism die as quickly as possible.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 71

RFextra

There is no democracy in the UK... It's a massive farce / illusion. All top political parties are puppets for foreign financiers. Why do you think we're getting involved "protecting" Libyans while people are being massacred in Bahrain and other places? Oil, guns and money.

The idea that the worlds resources are scarce is greatly exaggerated to increase profitability. There's enough to go round... truth is most the population are stuck in a government livestock program which relies on cycular consumption and lies and is perpetuated by greed. Repressed on the sly every day. We think we're free which keeps us imprisoned into this system.

If only everyone knew the secret...

Reply 72

anonymous 428

the banking system
and greeddyy ppl lol

Reply 73

Steevee

Original post by Mann18

Because of the exsclusivity of the job. What it requires. Where stacking shelves requires no training, being a National distributor will require an intricate knowledge of the business, finance, logistics and so on. If that were payed the same, what would be the incentive to work hard to get there, instead of staying as a shelf stacker?

Original post by Mann18

This part I agree on, supply and demand and all that, but if the people stacking shelves were afforded similar opportunities to the others, we may well not have that situation.

Hmm, but I wouldn't say that many managers have had more or less oppurtunities than shelf stackers. They've just made the best of them. Take my Dad for instance, left school with 8 GCSE's, became something akin to a regional manager in a large Bank. Did he have more oppurtunities? No he did not, he was from a normal working class family in Oswerstry. He worked through the ranks, he worked hard and went to ngiht school and ended up on a pay package equivilent to near enough £100k a year. And there are a million stories like that.

Original post by Mann18

I agree, there are bad rich kids. But there is no excuse for being a chav. None at all, and to excuse it is to encourage it. Rich kids have it easier, I'm not denying that, but equally there is no excuse for chavdom.

Original post by Mann18

What's so bad about that? I'm not saying they shouldn;t try to better themselves. They certainley should. What I'm saying is they shouldn't resent the children of the successful because their parents weren't. It's pure jealousy. I know plenty of people at my 6th Form, all of which attended the Comp it's attached to before with the capability to achieve highly in their A-levels. Our education system isn't the best, but it provides what needs to be there.

Original post by Mann18

You have incorrectly attributed wealth to hard work.

Let's start right at the start shall we?

Person A is born into a relatively wealthy family, professional parents, and a nice 3 bedroomed house in Dulwich, London.
Person B is born into a relatively poor family, mother who works part time at ASDA, father who works in an office on minimum wage, lives in a 3 bedroomed terrace on an estate in Liverpool.

Person A goes to a private school, ends up going to Warwick to study Biology.
Person B goes to a state school, ends up going to Hull to do Biology.

From just the bold part, it looks as though it's obvious that Person A has worked harder, when that may not be truth at all.

This leads onto employment, where Person A gets a better paid job than Person B because their degree is valued more. Person A gets £30,000 a year when they are 30, Person B £17,000, purely due to the sort of employment available to them.

How, has one person worked discernibly harder than the other here?
I'd argue that the hypothetical I just offered isn't so crazy it's not possible either.

Of course you can work hard and not be succesful. But equally, you can't blame lack of success on lack of parental wealth. If person B is truly as intelligent as person A then for one there is no reason their grades shouldn't have been the same. A-levels really aren't that hard. Coming from someone who's not doing great. They just require application. But that aside, person B may start on a lower wage, but they have every oppurtunity to advance.

I'm not sure what you're advocating to be honest. You can't instantly have money. Just as the generation before you may be successful and leave you a legacy, so you may have to be the successful generation of your family. As I've said before. Not everyone can be rich. If you're not rich already, it requires hard work, wit, luck and so on. If you're already a bit wealthy, well then it's easier. But that's obvious.

Reply 74

Llamageddon

Original post by darknessbehold

Because 49% have to put up with the person 51% voted in. Basically means a big F*** you to the 49% who didn't vote for the winner.

I don't see what that has to do with capitalism.

Reply 75

Comeheretellme

Original post by .Ali.

No one in life has an exact 'level playing field' though. You just have to make the best of what you have. Some people have more than others, well I'm afraid that's tough. People could make it if they wanted to.

I'm on about people in the UK by the way, obviously if you're born in an African slum then that's slightly different.

But surely they'll just get trampled by the privileged? Most of the time anyway.

The issue of people from lower income families not excelling at whatever fields they choose , is mainly down to the higher income people who have better resources because they can afford it. It's not someone's fault if they are born into a poor family and are undermined by the rich. Rich people also tend to have a lot of networks which impedes opportunities for a poorer person.

Reply 76

Mann18

Original post by .Ali.

I'm pretty sure that's only if there are two or more in the vicinity.

Source? I hadn't heard this.

But not impossible. The thing is, you don't know how hard a richer child might have it either. Yes they have advantages in the monetary side. But say that child was in and out of hospital for the first few years of it's life, suffered bullying at school causing self esteem problems etc, then they would have issues to overcome too. It goes back to my point about you cannot have a level playing field. Money is only one advantage, there are plenty of others.

Well obviously there are instances where the richer person has had to overcome more adversity than the poorer person, but these are relatively few and far between. You haven't taken into account the "drive" factor either. A person born into a poor family is less likely to see being rich as a possibility as compared to one born into a rich background.

Well it does depend on what sort of person you are lol. No one wants a chav as a top doctor, but a hardworking, intelligent sincere man who had a poor background to start with? There isn't an issue.

Someone who is labelled a "chav" is highly unlikely to be able to become a top doctor due to many factors. I would wager that the number of doctors who went to state schools is less than 50%, when the private sector accounts for less than 20% of schools.

You mean where you said that if I'd had a difficult life I might be the same as chavs or something? I really don't think so, simply because I have had a difficult life (not financially but through other ways) and I didn't decide to take it out on the general public. I decided that I'd work twice as hard to compensate for it.

You may have had a difficult life, but you weren't born on a council estate to a mother and father who don't want to work, spend their time getting drunk and watching the Jeremy Kyle show.

Whilst I'm sure the adversity you've had to overcome was harsh, you can't really say what you'd become if you were put into the family others were. Similarly I should say that certainly, some people are more susceptible to turning out that way than others (members of my immediate family aren't exactly the most classy people I know) but I'd say myself and my siblings turned out quite well.

You type in a readable manner, thus, I would conclude you aren't very chavvy. :tongue:

Jst bkos i dont typ lke dis dunt meen im nt a chv.

Reply 77

MillerTraub

Original post by wactm

I was talking about luck based on what you are born into.

For example, who can help being born into an abusive family? Or even less extreme, a family that is unsupportive? Or even less extreme, what kind of education you receive. The difference between going to a good school and bad school are immense.

'Online ventures' sounds an awful lot like someone plays online poker... maybe I'm wrong, what do you do?

Reply 78

HighestKungFu

Original post by wactm

This is the beauty of capitalism. Hard working, self motivated, creative, intelligent and ambitious people can always get into the top 1% if they want to!

What most people dont realise is that getting a job will not even land you in the top 5% 99.99% of the time. 100k a year as a doctor? That is nothing. Entrepreneurialship is king. Work Smart Not Hard. Keep it simple stupid (Kiss).

Edit

Why all the negs? I cant understand why anyone would neg this post..?

Because you speak as if there are no barriers for social mobility, and as if intelligence and hard-work are the only prerequisites for wealth accumulation.

Do you think chief executives hand over their positions to just anybody? Do you not know that in the U.S. the top 1% dominate business and politics and like to keep it that way (i.e. it's exclusive and not open to all). Your naivety is why you are being negged.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 79

Organ

Original post by Mann18

More like 7% of schools! Yet it accounts for 45% of Oxbridge students and a highly disproportionate number of medical, dental and vet students. It's one of the most shameful aspects of the United Kingdom. It's tragic that, more often than not, people's destination in life is a pre-determined, and not-self determined, path. Interestingly, the university league table and the %of state pupils, is largely in correlation.