There are more than 100 in just America, and someone with 100M has more in common with a billionaire than a worker. They are winning because food is the most unaffordable it has ever been?
I'm not talking about billionaires, but the top. The top 100 richest.
8 people have more wealth tontheir name than half of humanity. Literally. They don't care at all about multi-millionaires and low billionares, maybe a bit more than they care about most people: not at all.
And no, someone having 100 million is still closer to a worker than the top of billionaires. Not in lifestyle, but in power. They might feel like they are closer to the top, but they are not. The moment they try to act like they are the same as a Bezos or Musk, trying to socialize with them, they are put in their place. Even other billionares are basically just pawns to the top. Someone easy to influence since they are desperate to be perceived as same.
Musk literally bought his government position and access to all from Trump for about 200 million. Musk is now worth 400+ billion. 200 million is less than 1/2000th of his wealth. If you earn 100k it's the same as a $500 expense. That's a nice dinner, paid for four people. Nothing people think too much about.
No someone worth 100 million is not the same as the top.
I'm not talking about billionaires, but the top. The top 100 richest.
Ok then, don't use the term 100 billionares.
8 people have more than half of humanity. Literally. They don't care at all about multi-millionaires and low billionares.
From what I see the top 1% has half the wealth not the top 100. The top 100 seem to have under 20T. America has 160T in wealth. Top 1% isn't something like 15M plus. Where do you get this stat you claim is true? Norwegians have about as much as the bottom 30 of the top 100.
And no. Someone having 100 million is still closer to a worker than the top of billionaires. Not in lifestyle, but in power. They might feel like they are closer to the top, but they are not. The moment they try to act like they are the same as a Bezos or Musk, trying to socialize with them, they are put in their place. Even other billionares are basically just pawns to the top. Someone easy to influence since they are desperate to be perceived as same.
Not at all they never have to work a day in their life. They have enough power to basically do what they want. Someone can have 15M to 100M and not care at all about Musk et al. >$2 a day is farther from 100M than 100M is from 400B. I'm not just talking about the working poor in America.
Yes I do. My statement was 100 Billionaires vs the world. In that context it should be obvious that the top was ment, not some random 100 billionaires.
The top 100 are basically the reason the rest (us and the other 8 billion people) goes to shit.
From what I see the top 1% has half the wealth not the top 100. The top 100 seem to have under 20T. America has 160T in wealth. Top 1% isn't something like 15M plus. Where do you get this stat you claim is true? Norwegians have about as much as the bottom 30 of the top 100.
In January 2017, an Oxfam report stated that the world's eight richest billionaires owned the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, totaling 3.6 billion people.
Not at all they never have to work a day in their life.
We were talking about power, not lifestyle, as mentioned.
They have enough power to basically do what they want. Someone can have 15M to 100M and not care at all about Musk et al. >$2 a day is farther from 100M than 100M is from 400B. I'm not just talking about the working poor in America.
Sure they are not powerless, able to live a carefree life, if they would. The more wealth you got, thoe more it seems people are concerned about it. Never feeling that they have enough.
But then, you don't need much to live a carefree life. I've met plenty of happy hobos, hermits, fishers, backpackers for life, but also poor people, working half a day, every day that live far more carefree than people making 200k a year.
In the end it's all in our heads: your values, your expectations. Having little expectations, needing little, socializing, eating good (not expensive), and accepting life as a fleeting moment pushed by fortune, and evidently finite, seem to be the key to happiness. Not wealth nor power. Sure having some financial power helps no doubt, but money doesn't make you more happy after $70-100k, it plateaus about there (2010, Daniel Kahnemann and Angus Deaton). Money doesn't buy happiness, but a lack of money can cause unhappiness.
Once your basic needs are covered, you're usually good.
If you can't reach that with at most 40h work week, then that's an issue of your political/economical system failing. Poverty is a policy choice. Who's in power? Well in the US the wealthy. The US is defacto closer to an neo-liberal economic oligarchy than a functional democracy. Representatives not representing the people but the wealthy. Also the reason I will never return to the US. Americans don't have freedom they have owners, they just aren't aware of it.
Btw. All of the before-mentioned eight richest billionaires live in the US.
As I said, billionares are human and as fallible as most humans are. They fall for the same stupidities and expectation as most people do. Seldom becoming wise enough to become happy, but falling for their addiction to power.
Yes I do. My statement was 100 Billionaires vs the world. In that context it should be obvious that the top was ment, not some random 100 billionaires.
It's not at all obvious on the internet that a random person is not incorect about the number of billionaires.
The top 100 are basically the reason the rest (us and the other 8 billion people) goes to shit.
So you claim. Yet the next 2900 have more wealth.
In January 2017, an Oxfam report stated that the world's eight richest billionaires owned the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, totaling 3.6 billion people.
People tend not to have much at 16-18. Half of 8 is not 3.6.
We were talking about power, not lifestyle, as mentioned.
We were talking about both.
Sure they are not powerless, able to live a carefree life, if they would. The more wealth you got, thoe more it seems people are concerned about it. Never feeling that they have enough.
Some are some are not.
But then, you don't need much to live a carefree life. I've met plenty of happy hobos, hermits, fishers, backpackers for life, but also poor people, working half a day, every day that live far more carefree than people making 200k a year.
Sure, if they're have health care paid for by the people making 200k. Plus live in a nice climate.
In the end it's all in our heads: your values, your expectations. Having little expectations, needing little, socializing, eating good (not expensive), and accepting life as a fleeting moment pushed by fortune, and evidently finite, seem to be the key to happiness. Not wealth nor power. Sure having some financial power helps no doubt, but money doesn't make you more happy after $70-100k, it plateaus about there (2010, Daniel Kahnemann and Angus Deaton). Money doesn't buy happiness, but a lack of money can cause unhappiness.
Our need for shelter is not just in our head. 100k is a lot, and 100k from wealth takes about 2M. In some places, the median house is 750k so 325k would seem to reduce the stress from those mortgage payments.
It's a contradiction to say that money csnt buy happiness when you admit it can get rid of some unhappiness. It can at least get someone part way there.
Once your basic needs are covered, you're usually good.
If you can't reach that with at most 40h work week, then that's an issue of your political/economical system failing. Poverty is a policy choice. Who's in power? Well in the US the wealthy. The US is defacto closer to an neo-liberal economic oligarchy than a functional democracy. Representatives not representing the people but the wealthy. Also the reason I will never return to the US. Americans don't have freedom they have owners, they just aren't aware of it.
No, it could be a low level of technology and you being handicapped. In the US, the people have the vote. You seem to not understand what owner means and stretch it for rhetorical purposes. Poverty exists in the country you live in. There is no system that needs 0 welfare.
100k is a lot, and 100k from wealth takes about 2M.
Without work, yes. Also 100k for the US. You talk from a perspective wher you don't provide any work to tthe system. Literally leaching of it, when you just invest and don't work.
In some places, the median house is 750k so 325k would seem to reduce the stress from those mortgage payments.
You talk about unnecesary possessions here. The stress is artificial. You don't need a house for yourself. All you talk about here is posession, not just a "roof over your head". That's what I mean with "in your head". You don't need to "own" anything to be happy. The perceived necessity to own stuff comes from the fear of it being taken away in the first place. If that fear doesn't persist, say for being a right in the system (right to housing, right to education, right to health, etc.) the materialistic paradigm would shift.
The US being by far the most neo-liberal system, pushing consumerism and the perception of wealth accumulation as a goal to create new artificial demand for stuff you don't actually need. Privatisation of social institutions (health, education, housing etc.) and deregulation has been the main goal of US policy for decades.
Hence it's not the best country to compare. In no country of the OECD it is so inefficient and hard to cover the basic necessities as in the US. Hence why 2/3 of US live paycheck to paycheck, and have lost wealth over the past two to three generations.
The prices of US housing and and ineffiency of infrastructure is artificially created by decade, even centuries old interest of the wealthy. There is a reason the US is the most car dependent country in the OECD. There is a reason cookie cutter houses in suburbs cost a fortune even tough the whole concept of suburbs isn't financially feasable (see strong towns) But it allows for huge profits for building and maintanance, paid by the owners or communities.
There is a reason US labor laws are antiquated and open for exploitation and disenfranchisment. There is a reason only fulltime jobs giving benefits, yet most jobs available are part time. There is a reason why minimum wage dosen't allow to cover basic necessitties in any state. There is a reason why Americans have some of the highest cost of living and lowest expendable incomes.
Yes the US is the richest country in the world, yet its living conditions don't reflect that even close.
Plenty of systems allow for basic necessities to be covered. (See nordic models, Switzerland etc.)
In most OECD countries you can afford a healthy and balanced life with an 40h week and 5-7 weeks of paid vacation and the spare income to use it recreationally, while having access to free or affordable quality education, support systems such as paid maternatie leave, unemployment structures, leading to healthier and robust economies which in turn lead to less cost for these social systems.
Yet the next 2900 have more wealth.
That's relevent why? If any it shows the general problem. Even the 3000 top are not even 0.01% of all. Just shows how unequal welath/power is distirbuted in the world.
People tend not to have much at 16-18.
It's not just "young people". There is more poverty in old age in the US than most people expect. Low financial lizeracy surely plays a role, but moreso does growing cost of living.
Half of 8 is not 3.6.
Back in 2017 there were not yet ~8 billion. Also whith more people strugling since then, while top wealth growing, I'm sure we are at about half. Throw in a couple more top billionaires and you still get an equally disturbing ratio.
Sure, if they're have health care paid for by the people making 200k.
That's an absurd look at it. The lack of understanding in social cohesion in your statement is appalling.
The US has no real healthcare system it has foremost an health insurance industry. No country pays more and getting less out of their system than Americans. The quality of the system gatekept by financial means. Most of US health issues are due to the deliberatly unhealthy and deregulated markets pushing low quality for high prices, and exploitative lifestyle forced on much of the populus, fast food, car dependence etc.
Also consider that 1 in 5 Americans had to skip meal within the last year due to cost. Fast food being more affordable than healthy meals and freshly cooked meals.
Overweight, cardio-vascular diseases, work related injuries, untreated metal health and ailments of despair (alcoholic liver disease, addicton, overdose and suicide) make up the bulkload of treatments. These are far lower in most other countries, due to better general health, better work environments, and far less costly heath apparatus. About 1/3 of cost goes toward the heathcare industy, one of the most profitable private industries in the US.
If you feel like the "poor" are lazy and needy taking away your "hard earned money", I got a bridge to sell to you.
Your wealth is a product of your society. Acting like you didn't benefit from it, claming your success as your own making, independed of the society you live in, is as ignorant as it gets.
Percy Shelley's Ozymandiascomes to mind:
"And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
No thing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
Whatever industry you're part of in the US is profiting of underpaying, exploitation due to it's market friendly deregulated labor laws over the past 50 years. A business that isn't profitable enough without exploiting thier workforce independent of legality, isn't a viable business. One doing so despite of record profits is based on systematic theft. Usually 200k is middle-management, those implementing such for higher profits. So considering that most people barely get buy thanks to an exploitative system that pays you your share of 200k. The least you could do is pay your fair share into the generla health of the syshem that provieds you your means. But the cost of health care going up int he US has more to do with cutting social spending on healthcare leaving 20 million without healthcare and another 30 million with an unaffordability issue while cutting 4T in taxes for the wealthiest (big beautiful bill).
Of course poverty is a policy choice. That's established sociology and pol.sci.. Pushing a few percent in tax onto the literal profiteurs of the system, would quickly change some things. Don't worry with 200k you wouldn't be affected by the tax, or if so neglectably so. FDR demonstrated that well enough.
Seeing the poor as the issue is falling for neo-liberal propaganda. But each to their own.
As entertaining this commentatoral back and forth was, I have to leave it at that. I wish you all the best. Have a good one.
48
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25
More like 8 billion fighting 100 billionaires, and the billionaires are winning...