Perception vs Reality Distribution of Wealth..

[melon]

OK, I'll try and explain this.

My lifestyle consumes a lot of products, these products are made by workers. If you look at all the things I consume on an average week, the vast majority of the 'work' (that is, time spent by workers) will have been done by those in second world countries.

Keep this idea in mind, we'll call it quality of life. It is true that money is required for it, but how does quality rise in relationship to money? After a while we get to the whole "well I've only got an iPad 3, rather than the new iPad 4" mentality.

Now this is a video for stupid people, why? The author doesn't actually understand what money is. Lets say I want to buy all the flats on a street. If they sell about 3 a year, for £400k How many can I buy? It's not going to be the same price each time is it? Some will have wildly different prices due to proximity to the park, but mostly, the prices will change as I start buying them all. The last house will cost more than the first. The effect is that those who buy their houses first will be 'richer' than those who buy them later, assuming all other things equal.

The quality of life, is pretty much the same for all people there. Now as mentioned this video includes money in companies, which ask anyone who runs one, will tell you isn't really fair.

So the wealth distribution isn't really what that video tries to make it sound like, for a start of a lot of the assets would lose value if they had to be sold and converted instantly. Just like in the buying the houses, the first mover has an advantage. This means people can have huge paper wealth, which isn't really worth that much, it doesn't change their quality of life. In effect, this is why not all fanboys, despite having the money to hand, can buy an iPad on launch day.Huh. The death of jessops is a great thing, they are horrifically overpriced, with ignorant staff. My local brand like SRS are much better.

Your right , the video hasnt included ratios for how much of the money the rich have is through political powers they've invested in themselves.

That makes them an island to themselves as the 1% prove, that can not only function but flourish where others do not too because of those very privileges.

I would also argue your definition of quality of life is purely materialistic , products made in other countries have no bearing on quality of life ( at least for me )
other than food and the fact it keeps more folk out of work here .

[Top_gun]

The youtube video features the work of a University Professor who specialises in behaviour economics.

The usage of wealth, rather than income, to demonstrate the difference between demographics and what people believe to be the case was deliberate.

Eventually, we'll see a re-balancing of wealth equality when government targets the richest 1% once a global taxation framework has been established.

[peterb]

we'll see a re-balancing of wealth equality when government targets the richest 1% once a global taxation framework has been established.

Ah yes, one global economy, one global superstate, that disinsentivises individuals, and assumes that the state knows best.

There are very few international unified tax systems in the world - every State in the USA has its own tax regime which is guarded jealously.. A global tax regime is just so much political rhetoric.

[Top_gun]

Ah yes, one global economy, one global superstate, that disinsentivises individuals, and assumes that the state knows best.

At the moment we have a system where the 99% are having their wealth eroded while the top 1% are just too rich that they no longer have the motivation to create jobs. The system needs to have a re-balance where the majority have the incentive to work. Taking money from the poor to pay off the financial crisis debts isn't a workable solution since they have no money.

As for 'the state knows best' are you seriously saying that big businesses like ATOS, banks, etc knows best? At least governments are elected by the people.

[Willzzz]

the top 1% are just too rich that they no longer have the motivation to create jobs.

You'd think it would work like that but there doesn't seem to be an upper limit where people think they have enough money.

The people at the very top are ultra competitive and while being richer may not improve their lifestyle they still seem to have a desire to increase their wealth.
Whatever instincts caused them to become rich in the first place tend to remain strong drivers in terms of motivation.

[aidanjt]

You'd think it would work like that but there doesn't seem to be an upper limit where people think they have enough money.

They don't have to create jobs to make more money. As Mitt Romney found out, you can even make a boatload of money eliminating jobs.

[Willzzz]

True, but I don't think these people lose motivation as they succeed more.

Anyway, the trouble isn't the taxation, the real problem is the government spending.

[Top_gun]

You'd think it would work like that but there doesn't seem to be an upper limit where people think they have enough money.

The people at the very top are ultra competitive and while being richer may not improve their lifestyle they still seem to have a desire to increase their wealth.
Whatever instincts caused them to become rich in the first place tend to remain strong drivers in terms of motivation.

It seems Michael Heseltine doesn't agree with your views. Here is his recent quote:

"There is no God-given rule saying you've got to have a well-performing economy. It could be an indifferent economy. It's a question of whether the national will is there; whether we want it. And the richer you get the less imperative there is. Maybe one of the problems of advanced economies is that people are sufficiently well-off that they don't need to drive themselves anymore."

Also some of the behavioural economics research has revealed that high income/bonuses are actually counterproductive once you've go passed a certain point.

[Willzzz]

He is talking about the population in general, not individuals.

[Top_gun]

He is talking about the population in general, not individuals.

Even if that is the case, population is made up of individuals so that cancels your point out. Furthermore, Michael went on to say "And the richer you get the less imperative there is". Clearly he is referring to the richer individuals.

[Willzzz]

The richer the country gets the less imperative there is as the state will able to provide a higher minimum level of support.

[Top_gun]

I am sorry that you don't understand behavioural economics, Willlzzz. Otherwise the points Michael was making would be crystal clear. Worst still is the argument that private sector is better than the public sector.

Moving on, if the one percent has a disproportionate share of the wealth then basically the 99% is fighting for the rest of the share.

[Willzzz]

The people who are driven, stay driven, even when they become rich, there's always another challenge.
The people who are lazy remain lazy.

[Top_gun]

Well research into behavioural economics says otherwise about what you've said, Willzzz. The reality is that many of these 1% are 'largeing it up' on their multi-million pound yachts.

[wasabi]

Moving on, if the one percent has a disproportionate share of the wealth then basically the 99% is fighting for the rest of the share.

No, they're not fighting for it at all. You got to be in it to win it. Very very few people buy stocks and shares, which is even incentivised by ISA rules. I get royally fed up with people mouthing off about about people making a fortune on the stockmarket, but strangely don't have the cojones to do it themselves.

[Willzzz]

Why not try to convince me instead of just saying I'm wrong? Why not link to all this research?

The very fact that so much of our wealth is concentrated in so few people shows that people don't stop working once they reach a certain level of wealth.

You don't see people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, etc. retiring just because they have enough money to live out the rest of their life in absolute luxury. If they can keep growing their wealth, or move into new areas they will.