• Ahdok
    link
    6
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m not talking about the single outliers at the top, but about the “billionaire class” in general, it’s a pretty modern concept. There’s a reason I said “Average” and not “Richest”

    Yes, if we go back to before 1900 the wealthiest people had more of the pie, but this is largely a product of the bottom of society having, essentially, nothing. 1800s societies were capable of producing enough for (most people) to survive, and there wasn’t much excess “wealth” to go around. While the rich collected most of that, the difference is in the scale of “available resources.” It’s not a comparable system when most of your population are serfs.

    I don’t find it encouraging to say “oh well, this isn’t unique, look it used to be like this 100 years ago!” when 100 years ago the quality of life for regular people was abysmal.

    The fact that your graphs show wealth inequality steadily growing is the major concern. We had a more equitable society in the 1970s by a long shot. Our current state isn’t inevitable, it’s a result of the policies we’ve implemented. With current trends, do we want our society to return to those dynamics of the1800s? In a world where we’ve so much automation and wealth in the world that we could care for everyone why do people still have to work 40+ hours a week just to get by?

    Funny you should say “we” and “American History” though :) Maybe the American model is the problem here.

    • @nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You said “now we have billionaires” like it’s a new phenomena. The graph I posted tracks the total wealth share of the top 1% wealthiest people, which is a much better picture of income inequality than the “average CEO”. Notice that the total wealth share went from 30% to 35% since its low in 1970, which is a much smaller change than the 200+x difference that people like to quote.

      While inequality is growing, it’s not nearly as dramatic as people make it out to be and in 2023 we are far closer to that 1970s low than we were a century ago

      In a world where we’ve so much automation and wealth in the world that we could care for everyone why do people still have to work 40+ hours a week just to get by?

      I don’t disagree with you. Most people in white collar jobs realistically don’t get more than 5 hours a day of real productive work done to begin with. Why do we need to be at the office for 8 hours?

      I just think it’s important to look at the data in an objective way. Instead of posting inflammatory comments on Lemmy that exaggerate the situation, you could try lobbying your representatives for better worker protections.

      Funny you should say “we” and “American History” though :) Maybe the American model is the problem here.

      Well, I’m American lol. But the trends are similar in almost every developed country so I don’t think this is an American problem.

      • Ahdok
        link
        33 months ago

        Your first argument is, again, very American-centric - yes the rate that wealth inequality is growing in the USA is less pronounced than in other places, but it was always pretty bad in the USA. The argument that “trends are similar in almost every developed country” is also a little disingenuous - it’s true for the G8. In many European countries, they’re actually taxing the wealthy sensibly and putting that money into public services to make everyone’s lives better, the wealth gap is much smaller and the quality of life and happiness of regular people is better.

        Again “a century ago” or longer doesn’t matter because it’s pre-industrial revolution. The total amount of “wealth to go around” was much smaller, and we were living under very different systems.

        If a king or an emperor owns 50% of the wealth of a nation, and everyone else is equal, then yes, your graph will show “the top 1% have 50% of the wealth” but also your system is specifically designed to give all the money to one person. Arguing “well 100 or 200 years ago this was worse” is moot, because we’re comparing different systems… Unless your point is that our current system is also designed to deprive all wealth and comfort to the masses to enrich a select few, and we should be “thankful” that it’s less good at it.

        We have to compare within the same system, and look for the best we can do. Unless you’re specifically arguing that the wealth distribution in the 1970s is unsustainable, then that’s an example of when we were capable of doing better, and it’s okay to find that as something to aspire and build towards.


        Lobbying your representatives for better worker protections is a joke, especially in America. Many representatives in the USA don’t even hold surgeries, you can’t talk to them directly. You can write them a letter, which they ignore. Rich corporations pay our representatives massive donations to their campaigns (or in other countries, they pay them via more circuitous routes), and they get the policy that benefits them.

        Here’s an example - Back at the start of the Trump administration, a bill was written by the house to make it legal for ISPs to sell your private information and browsing history to corporations for their own profits. A number of polling institutions went around and took some credible large-scale polls of public opinion about this. 98% of respondents opposed the bill. The legislation passed congress and is now law. Who’s “lobbying” of congress matters? individuals, or Comcast?

        There are a very small number of US representatives who refuse to take money from large corporations - and those, in general, seem to hold the interests of the people to heart. Before “lobbying your representatives” can work, there needs to be widespread grassroots movements to elect more of these people. Until that happens, there aren’t representatives, there are rulers.


        It’s not inflammatory to argue for better systems. It’s not a lie that while we’ve had a massive industrial revolution that increased the productivity of workers, those benefits have not been seen by the workers. We still work just as long, and just as hard, for an ever diminishing amount of the pie. You can say “oh but you have a fancy car” but… just look at the percentage of people who own their own home by generation. The current trends are extremely concerning and need to change.

        • @nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          43 months ago

          A century ago was post Industrial Revolution and after the advent of mass production as a common means to produce goods. This was also past the time where many European countries had moved to a parliamentary system.

          I’m not sure if you are just ignorant of history or what.

          It’s not inflammatory to argue for better systems.

          It’s inflammatory when the statistics are being presented in a misleading way, which you and many others are guilty of. We can discuss how to improve the system without that sort of thing and it’s not productive to actually seeing change get made.

          It’s not a lie that while we’ve had a massive industrial revolution that increased the productivity of workers, those benefits have not been seen by the workers.

          It certainly is. Our living conditions have consistently improved in many ways as a result of industrialization.

          You can argue that we could see more benefit and I’d agree with you, but to act like the average person hasn’t benefitted from industrialization is disingenuous.

          • Ahdok
            link
            2
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The main thrust of my argument is simply, and throughout, has been this:

            In the last 50 years, “worker productivity” has increased dramatically. compensation has not. The increased wealth that we are all generating is not making our lives better - it’s going into the pockets of billionaires.

            As you put it “the real median wage has not changed since 1980”. As you showed with the graph you posted, the increased wealth that is being generated is increasingly going to the wealthiest people. This is all the data we need to support my argument, and they’re both claims you have made.

            The “improved living conditions” from better technology and industrial processes do not REQUIRE us to be giving all the extra wealth we’re generating to the wealthiest people. These would still exist if we were taxing billionaires and large companies more, enforcing better wages for regular people, and investing that wealth into social programs.

            • @nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Yes I agree with most of this. If the original post I responded to had said this instead of misleading statistics and “now we have billionaires” like that class of people is a recent development I wouldn’t have said anything. We can make our arguments without those sort of rhetorical devices and people will take us more seriously if we do.

              People like to look back with rose tinted glasses and act like things were so much better in the gold ole days. They weren’t and we are arguably better off now than in almost any other time in history. I see value in appreciating that fact.

              That said, just because we have benefitted from automation and technology development doesn’t change that we could do better. I’d love to see more social safety nets, more affordable housing, reduced working hours, and so forth.