“Now we know why CEOs didn’t want this data released,”

[DBT]

So in your mind, "wealth" is "having a lot more than other people"?

Obviously. Not just ''more'' but far, far more. With the gulf between classes, the super rich and the rest, growing ever wider.

No, I've just gone round this carousel with you before in other topics.

likewise.

 

[Emily Lake]

Obviously. Not just ''more'' but far, far more. With the gulf between classes, the super rich and the rest, growing ever wider.

I guess "a lot more" wasn't sufficient and you needed to clarify.

Anyway, seems that once more you're dealing with a very specific and personal definition that doesn't really line up with any common understanding of the term that most other people would use in this context.

 

[DBT]

Obviously. Not just ''more'' but far, far more. With the gulf between classes, the super rich and the rest, growing ever wider.

I guess "a lot more" wasn't sufficient and you needed to clarify.

Anyway, seems that once more you're dealing with a very specific and personal definition that doesn't really line up with any common understanding of the term that most other people would use in this context.

Nothing of the sort. Though there are no sharp delineations between lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, moderately wealthy, very wealthy, it is a definable scale based on average income, assets, investments, etc. At the bottom end, those at poverty level have very little income or assets, no investments, but at the top of the scale, the super rich have far more than any person needs.

There lies the problem, the sheer scale of disparity between a small percentage of those at the very top and the rest.

The stats have been provided numerous times, only to be flippantly brushed aside or ignored by those arguing on behalf of the super rich.

Why you and others choose to defend the indefensible is beyond me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Obviously. Not just ''more'' but far, far more. With the gulf between classes, the super rich and the rest, growing ever wider.

I guess "a lot more" wasn't sufficient and you needed to clarify.

Anyway, seems that once more you're dealing with a very specific and personal definition that doesn't really line up with any common understanding of the term that most other people would use in this context.

Nothing of the sort. Though there are no sharp delineations between lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, moderately wealthy, very wealthy, it is a definable scale based on average income, assets, investments, etc. At the bottom end, those at poverty level have very little income or assets, no investments, but at the top of the scale, the super rich have far more than any person needs.

There lies the problem, the sheer scale of disparity between a small percentage of those at the very top and the rest.

The stats have been provided numerous times, only to be flippantly brushed aside or ignored by those arguing on behalf of the super rich.

Why you and others choose to defend the indefensible is beyond me.

You are assuming you are correct and using that to say she's wrong.

 

[DBT]

Nothing of the sort. Though there are no sharp delineations between lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, moderately wealthy, very wealthy, it is a definable scale based on average income, assets, investments, etc. At the bottom end, those at poverty level have very little income or assets, no investments, but at the top of the scale, the super rich have far more than any person needs.

There lies the problem, the sheer scale of disparity between a small percentage of those at the very top and the rest.

The stats have been provided numerous times, only to be flippantly brushed aside or ignored by those arguing on behalf of the super rich.

Why you and others choose to defend the indefensible is beyond me.

You are assuming you are correct and using that to say she's wrong.

It is not my claim. It is not something that I cooked up and just happen to believe. I have stats provided by studies done by several different organizations, which I have posted numerous times. If the studies and their related stats are wrong, they have not been shown to be wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nothing of the sort. Though there are no sharp delineations between lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, moderately wealthy, very wealthy, it is a definable scale based on average income, assets, investments, etc. At the bottom end, those at poverty level have very little income or assets, no investments, but at the top of the scale, the super rich have far more than any person needs.

There lies the problem, the sheer scale of disparity between a small percentage of those at the very top and the rest.

The stats have been provided numerous times, only to be flippantly brushed aside or ignored by those arguing on behalf of the super rich.

Why you and others choose to defend the indefensible is beyond me.

You are assuming you are correct and using that to say she's wrong.

It is not my claim. It is not something that I cooked up and just happen to believe. I have stats provided by studies done by several different organizations, which I have posted numerous times. If the studies and their related stats are wrong, they have not been shown to be wrong.

Even if you had proven the disparity you haven't proven that it's that big a problem.

 

[DBT]

It is not my claim. It is not something that I cooked up and just happen to believe. I have stats provided by studies done by several different organizations, which I have posted numerous times. If the studies and their related stats are wrong, they have not been shown to be wrong.

Even if you had proven the disparity you haven't proven that it's that big a problem.

The problems have been described numerous times;

Some reasons why gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:

''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.

''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice epitomised by globalisation nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''

''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''

''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''

 

[lpetrich]

There are purely economic problems also, like bidding up the costs of important goods, like real estate in certain places. Consider this:

The Fountainhead: Poor Doors

Some of the world’s most expensive cities are witnessing a trend: new residences get snapped up as fast as they’re built, but not for anyone to live in. They’re being bought by ultra-rich elites who care about the properties only as investments to flip later. In the meantime, they’re left unoccupied.

Many of the buyers are oligarchs from autocratic and corruption-plagued countries like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia. Rather than keep their money where it could be seized at the whim of the authorities, they park it in real estate in foreign nations with a stronger rule of law than their own. Expensive real estate is even better for the purpose, since it lets them squirrel away more cash. New York City and London have been particularly plagued by this trend, as have Toronto and Vancouver.

These “safe-deposit boxes in the sky” are so common, they create a bizarre spectacle: in the most expensive, exclusive neighborhoods in the world, block after block sits vacant. In ultra-luxury buildings like 432 Park in New York or the Shard in London, multimillion-dollar apartments sit empty year-round. Meanwhile, ordinary people who actually live and work in these cities can’t keep up with soaring real-estate prices and are pushed out farther and farther, to distant suburbs and increasingly onerous commutes. Local businesses go under as they unexpectedly find themselves in ghost towns.

 

[Canard DuJour]

High inequality is associated with slower growth, less productive investment and more frequent/severe financial crises.

It's also correlated with a host of health and social ills, after absolute levels of deprivation are controlled for.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not my claim. It is not something that I cooked up and just happen to believe. I have stats provided by studies done by several different organizations, which I have posted numerous times. If the studies and their related stats are wrong, they have not been shown to be wrong.

Even if you had proven the disparity you haven't proven that it's that big a problem.

How big does a problem in order to be dealt with?