The Student Room Group

Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half'

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Sakisaka
Not saying the gap should be closed, however I hate the argument that the poor people complaining are just lazy and could be rich if they worked hard. It's just such a naive look at things, this world needs factory workers and other low skill jobs, not saying that they should be paid as much as a CEO however they shouldn't be exploited and underpaid for their work because their input is necessary. If everyone decided to work hard and become a businessman it wouldn't work.


There will very likely always be pay differences and the way the labour markets work, there are going to be wide variations in pay for jobs that have skill shortages, bear heavy responsibilities or require long periods of training to enter compared to jobs that don't.

That said, it's clear that senior managerial pay in many sectors, including across the public sector and in places like universities is now wildly out of kilter with labour market realities or with the skills being applied. The reason is that the pay rates for these roles are not fixed in a free market - they are fixed via a sort of elite club of pay rate determiners who ensure that their colleagues get the same high salaries as themselves and who have a vested interest in constantly ramping them up.

This is particularly true in big corporations, but you see it also in things like local government - the Chief Executives of local authorities pay themselves ludicrously large salaries at a time when they are engaged in mass redundancy programmes and austerity cuts.
Original post by NI30241834
Yes i do think it's moral especially as they're less likely to use services such as state education and healthcare.


So the rich don't benefit from the healthcare system providing them with a healthy supply of workers? Or from the school system pumping out droves of educated future employees? Or from the roads they use to transport their goods and products? Or from the police force that protects their property and their businesses?

edit: awww beaten to the punch by Fullofsurprises
Original post by Fullofsurprises
We don't have to go to a Soviet system to have more fairness and a better, more productive, more growthful economy. The United States and Europe managed it quite happily for 50 years in the postwar consensus until neoliberalism took hold and the rich stopped paying their taxes. .


I m not even going to go into all this here, it is clearly nonsense, but I can't be @rsed. Let's accept your premise.

What are you and the left going to do about it? Isn't it time you won a few elections?

Or are you advocating revolution? How do you think that will go, based on past experience?
The standard defense of this situation is circular - they're rich because they deserve it, and they must deserve it because look! They're rich! Simply put they exist within a system that's rigged to benefit them. It's a system where capital accumulates toward the top, and money begets more money. The crucial point being, there's nothing remotely 'natural' or inherently correct or moral about such a system. You can't tell me they deserve their obscene fortunes simply because capitalism allows these circumstances to exist.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Captain Haddock
The standard defense of this situation is circular - they're rich because they deserve it, and they must deserve it because look! They're rich! Simply put they exist within a system that's rigged to benefit them. It's a system where capital accumulates toward the top, and money begets more money. The crucial point being, there's nothing remotely 'natural' or inherently correct about such a system. You can't tell me they deserve their obscene fortunes simply because capitalism allows these circumstances to exist.


It is not that they deserve these fortunes but that all of the alternative systems that have been tried, bring greater evils.

Captalism and liberal democracy are indefensible except that every other system (communism, islamism) is even worse.
Original post by 999tigger
Yes that equates to every two weeks. ......

Not as though the objectives of Oxfam would be anything to do with tackling wold poverty or showing that wealth inequality on this scale highlights the issue.... Guess you are only allowed to talk about it once and now the issue has all been resolved.


I didn't say 'two weeks'. You said 'two weeks'. I said 'few weeks'. You would have more credibility if you could accurately quote a piece of text which is literally centimetres away from where you are typing. And yes, they talk about it constantly. They had a video out on facebook about the tax affairs of 'the rich' just last week.

It is a non-issue. Even so, you are permitted to talk about it to your heart's content. That doesn't, however, make it news, which was my point.
Original post by NI30241834
There really isn't a problem with this they still pay more than the average person and use less services. If they avoid taxes then that's not necessarily bad because rather than giving money in taxes they tend to re-invest it into the economy creating cheaper products and employment for more people leading to greater tax revenue.


It doesn't work like that in practise. The economy distorts into providing luxury services for a few at high prices. These sectors do not generate many well paid jobs. There is a marked contraction in the widespread well paid jobs in other sectors that used to mass produce quality goods and services for the mass of well paid people. The very rich are taking a larger and larger share of incomes and with low growth and zero or declining real wages, the ability of ordinary wage earners to buy goods and services goes down.

Neoliberalism 'fixed' this gap over the last 20 years via a wave of easy credit - they basically pushed the ordinary wage earners into massive debt. This bubble crashed in 2008 and since then it has become incredibly clear that we can no longer have a viable system when most of the benefits of the economic growth goes to less than a thousand people globally because they have rigged the tax system and purchased the politicians.
Original post by Captain Haddock
The standard defense of this situation is circular - they're rich because they deserve it, and they must deserve it because look! They're rich! Simply put they exist within a system that's rigged to benefit them. It's a system where capital accumulates toward the top, and money begets more money. The crucial point being, there's nothing remotely 'natural' or inherently correct or moral about such a system. You can't tell me they deserve their obscene fortunes simply because capitalism allows these circumstances to exist.


The justification for the billionaire class is identical to the justifications the corrupt cardinals of the Roman church used to circulate in medieval times, which was that as God had appointed them, they must be virtuous above other men, therefore it must be right that the wealth be controlled by them and not only that, their spectacular consumption, lavish palaces and indulgent lifestyles were all proof that God loved them especially.
Reply 48
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It doesn't work like that in practise. The economy distorts into providing luxury services for a few at high prices. These sectors do not generate many well paid jobs. There is a marked contraction in the widespread well paid jobs in other sectors that used to mass produce quality goods and services for the mass of well paid people. The very rich are taking a larger and larger share of incomes and with low growth and zero or declining real wages, the ability of ordinary wage earners to buy goods and services goes down.

Neoliberalism 'fixed' this gap over the last 20 years via a wave of easy credit - they basically pushed the ordinary wage earners into massive debt. This bubble crashed in 2008 and since then it has become incredibly clear that we can no longer have a viable system when most of the benefits of the economic growth goes to less than a thousand people globally because they have rigged the tax system and purchased the politicians.


Id have to disagree on that im afraid. If luxury services are provided it does create a great many reasonable paying jobs. For example i'm from Crewe where Bently motor cars are produced i know loads of people who work in the factory providing a luxury service to the rich and themselves earning a reasonable wage.

The way i see it wealth inequality is irrelevant so long as everyone has the right under law and equal opportunity to obtain it for themselves.
Original post by NI30241834
Id have to disagree on that im afraid. If luxury services are provided it does create a great many reasonable paying jobs. For example i'm from Crewe where Bently motor cars are produced i know loads of people who work in the factory providing a luxury service to the rich and themselves earning a reasonable wage.

The way i see it wealth inequality is irrelevant so long as everyone has the right under law and equal opportunity to obtain it for themselves.


You obtain a benefit from Bentleys in Crewe. But across the world, several million people who could have bought a Corsa are not doing so because their money is now firmly in the hands of the few thousand people who buy Bentleys.
Reply 50
Original post by Fullofsurprises
You obtain a benefit from Bentleys in Crewe. But across the world, several million people who could have bought a Corsa are not doing so because their money is now firmly in the hands of the few thousand people who buy Bentleys.


Sorry i don't understand what your getting at. It's not as if the rich are stealing from the poor, the poor are just of capable of making themselves better off if they have the drive, effort and intelligence to do so (at least in a well functioning nation such as most of Europe and the US).
Because people on minimum wage doing multiple jobs don't work hard?

I seriously wonder how people think such equality is "deserved" because those at the top obviously "work hard".
This is why I love this site. Thank you for bringing this up! This made me do further research into the topic. I heard about this quite a while back very briefly but didn't necessarily think too much about anything relating to the topic then. Now I'm like really? What?
The thing is, I respect both Gates and Zuckerberg for their humanitarian perspective on life and deeds which have tremulously helped others however I do wish globally poverty wasn't an issue. Maybe only in a utopian society would this be possible. But whatever the solution is, I'm for it and open to it.
Original post by Captain Haddock
The standard defense of this situation is circular - they're rich because they deserve it, and they must deserve it because look! They're rich! Simply put they exist within a system that's rigged to benefit them. It's a system where capital accumulates toward the top, and money begets more money. The crucial point being, there's nothing remotely 'natural' or inherently correct or moral about such a system. You can't tell me they deserve their obscene fortunes simply because capitalism allows these circumstances to exist.


Please correct me if I am wrong as I'm only here to learn however I thought the money has always been in business whether that is in technology, entertainment etc. Isn't it all due to demand? The reason why these men are so rich is because everyone in one way or shape/form uses or needs Microsoft whether that is its gadgets or softwares such as powerpoint then approximately 1 billion of humans on this planet has facebook. I mean, if everyone stopped using these then they wouldn't be as rich anymore unless they become shareholders in another business that gains ridiculous hype. This is going to sound unfair but today we are seeing Youtubers making more than your average doctors, lawyers and engineers combined.

A youtuber named Mr.Gear has these 4/5 minute videos of him doing all sorts of experiments- gains millions of views, I mean on one of his videos he gained 60 million views and in that month alone made approx $50,000 and he only began his channel a year ago. His average views per video is 2 million/3 million so say he makes 28,000 a month from his daily videos with these amounts of views..so annually that's $336,000. KSI has a similar viewing range though he has more subscribers and he could afford a new house, plus a lamborghini but why is this? It's because of the demand, viewers and advertisements. More views, more money. It's how facebook makes its money too with the advertisements and endorsements. So if anyone is to blame, I think it's us because we make these people rich.
(edited 7 years ago)
The world benefits tremendously from the profit motive a truth the left never understands.

Four of those guys, pilloried by the loony lefty ideologues who run Oxfam founded Amazon, Microsoft, Oeacle and Facebook.

They single handedly made the modern world pretty much. Can you imagine a world without consumer technology?

Non of us would be here, talking like this at all.

Do you think people found tech companies so they can go and buy a Corsa??

No it is the profit motive. The dream of riches. And when they actually get rich thy give it away. Win win for the world.
Original post by 999tigger
Its not every two weeks. have you ever bothered to look what the objectives of Oxfam is? It could be seomthing to do with tackling poverty?

Do you only ever talk about a subject once? Does poverty still exist in the world?


Poverty: the thing falling rather rapidly ever as the defined income (sorry, what's oxfam talking about again) to not be in poverty is going up, while the population in areas with high poverty also rapidly increases.

And remind me where the poverty is, last I checked it wasn't the 8 at the top, it's the 15% (and falling) at the bottom

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Danny Dorito
A new report released by Oxfam has shown that the 8 richest individuals in the world have as much wealth as the 3.6bn people who make up the poorest half of the world, according to Oxfam.

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Amancia Ortega are 3 of the billionaires that make up the list.

There have subsequently been calls for a "fair share of tax" to try and reduce the gap. You can read more on the story here.

Gates and Zuckerberg have been rather philanthropic with their money, but do you think more could be done? Or do you think they've worked are for their money and the gap is out of their control?

What would you do to close the gap?


The 3.6bn people could arrest the top 200ish richest people, take all of their wealth away, distribute it equally among everyone else in the world (including the billionaires so they at least have some money).
Reply 57
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It doesn't work like that in practise. The economy distorts into providing luxury services for a few at high prices. These sectors do not generate many well paid jobs. There is a marked contraction in the widespread well paid jobs in other sectors that used to mass produce quality goods and services for the mass of well paid people. The very rich are taking a larger and larger share of incomes and with low growth and zero or declining real wages, the ability of ordinary wage earners to buy goods and services goes down.

Neoliberalism 'fixed' this gap over the last 20 years via a wave of easy credit - they basically pushed the ordinary wage earners into massive debt. This bubble crashed in 2008 and since then it has become incredibly clear that we can no longer have a viable system when most of the benefits of the economic growth goes to less than a thousand people globally because they have rigged the tax system and purchased the politicians.


In the last 20 years, market orientated policies have lifted 600 million people out of poverty in China and more in India, Malaysia, Thailand etc, thanks to people like Bill Gates creating jobs for them. Whilst that doesn't benefit us, they are awfully grateful

The wealth inequality is because of government intervention in the economy, not a lack of it. Government mandating mortgage providers to provide loans to minorities and the poor caused the bubble to burst in 2008, because banks had to make loans to people who couldn't pay them off. Government intervention gave us the obscene debt. The Federal Reserve (a government creation) kept printing money to artificially inflate the stock market too in the name of stimulating consumer demand. This is not the free market. The fact that billionaires have pocketed politicians, means we get rid of politicians who have authority rather than billionaires who at are at least productive.

The economy does not distort into making luxury goods. If there is demand for cheaper goods, somebody will always be willing to make them because there is profit incentive. This is why free market capitalism is the only altruistic system.
Reply 58
Original post by Captain Jack
The 3.6bn people could arrest the top 200ish richest people, take all of their wealth away, distribute it equally among everyone else in the world (including the billionaires so they at least have some money).


I hope you're trolling
Not like I've seen a statistic on how a few billionaires have the same combined wealth as the poorest half... MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES. They've earned their money and some of them are doing a lot to help others with it, they deserve it and they aren't the ones causing world hunger and poverty. Several of the poorest countries are remaining the poorest because they can't develop since they are being blocked with trade and have internal issues like corruption, war, famines etc. not because some people set up businesses and earned a lot of money outside of these countries. Taxing Bill Gates more isn't going to result in wars or drought seasons to end.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest