FYI (and I expect to be downvoted because y’all don’t want to hear this), but when an article talks about the “global 1%” it’s probably talking about YOU.
Yes, you. And me. And probably most of the people reading this, who live in the US or another Western country and consider themselves “middle class.” WE are the global 1%.
If you earn $60,000 a year after tax and you don’t have kids, you’re in the richest 1 percent of the world’s population.
Also, if you prefer to measure by wealth instead of income, that’s lower than you think, too. I’m having trouble finding a more recent figure, but as of 2018, the threshold to be considered global 1% in terms of net worth was only $871,320. No, didn’t typo: it really is only hundreds of thousands, not millions or billions.
This is some wild reverse temporarily embarrassed millionaire bullshit right here.
No matter how many times you repeat this responsability shifting nonsense, it won’t ever make the people earning 60k responsible for what billionaires are doing.
Maybe visualising the scale of the numbers being discussed will help you see what a joke your comment is.
This has some hardcore original sin vibes. If the argument is that we are bad people merely for existing in this country regardless of our actions, then the argument is in bad faith and is only intended to tear down people who would otherwise wish to help.
But what’s your point? Are people making $60k/year causing world hunger through artificial scarcity or is it the greed and mental illness of the capitalist class?
The math doesn’t even math though. It’s 80 million people, globally. Are we to believe no other country contributes to this number? The entire rest of the “Western world” doesn’t contribute at all?
Yeah, but there’s still the issue that half the US fits that 60k metric and that’s roughly 160 million people, or around 80 million working adults. So more than 1 percent of the global population right there. As I said above, the math doesn’t math. This myth discounts the entirety of Europe and East Asia (China actually follows the US in number of high net worth people).
There’s a way to talk about the difference in services and standards of living but spreading myths isn’t it.
Not just Americans. First world nations in general. That’s about 20% of the population in there, so the top 5% of US, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. We’re talking the upper middle class. $100K pre-tax gets you there easily, and thanks to rising prices of housing, I doubt most of them feel very rich at all.
The billionaires are holding big numbers as well, and there’s a few of those dotted around the world, but I’d imagine they’re mostly concentrated in first world countries. If you can live anywhere, why would you live in a craphole?
Only $800k net worth? Who the hell in middle class America has that?
Homeowners near retirement age, basically. Much of that net worth would be their home value, and the rest would be in their 401k/IRA.
(Keep in mind that in order to achieve a “modest but comfortable” $40k/year middle-class retirement, you need $1M assets (not including your residence) to achieve a 4% safe withdrawal rate. Basically, you have to be a millionaire by retirement just to avoid poverty.)
Yes, you. And me. And probably most of the people reading this, who live in the US or another Western country
Not quite. 1% of global population is ~80 million people. There are about a billion people in the highly developed nations (US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and some minor others). So the top 8% of the golden billion, if we assume all in the US, the top ~25% of the country.
That “study” is a charity trying to guilt people into giving money. When you adjust for PPP it becomes quite a different story. The media loves it because it drives clicks but it’s literally just a calculator to guilt you and a list of approved charities.
This is what Oxfam has to say, from the actual article.
The immense concentration of wealth, driven significantly by increased monopolistic corporate power, has allowed large corporations and the ultrarich who exercise control over them to use their vast resources to shape global rules in their favor, often at the expense of everyone else.
The immense concentration of wealth, driven significantly by increased monopolistic corporate power, has allowed large corporations and the ultrarich who exercise control over them to use their vast resources to shape global rules in their favor, often at the expense of everyone else.
This is literally everything.
Aside from the bullshit religion is responsible for, the vast majority of the issues with the whole world is down to this. Government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation.
OK so I’m a millennial worth $-35,600, that’s a negative net worth thanks to student loans and the fact that owning anything is outside of my shirt on my back is basically been priced out.
So a net worth of close to $900,000 is feeling a lot like a whole fuck ton of money to me. And probably a lot of other people nowhere fucking near that.
Just cause we live in “western” countries does not make it immediately that we are anywhere near the 1% either. It’s 1% for a reason. Just more of that 1% live in western worlds cause that’s where they want to live. Don’t think of it as some slam dunk.
Middle class people worth 800 grand these days, and earn over 60 grand where you live? Damn.
Upper middle class maybe, sure, but middle class mostly doesn’t exist any more, mostly it’s people scraping by on a mortgage trying to act like they’re still middle class :-(
Average wage in the US is a lot more than 45k. Sorry to hear about your financial situation, we don’t even try to make the economy work for most people.
I’d say it’s also relative to an area’s COL. Not technically, but practically. Sure I’m living great compared to many. The kleptocrats are the ones killing us all, including the habitat they need to survive. But hey, as long as they live longest with the most money, it’s all cake.
In addition to the problems with this that others have stated, this also ignores the wealth distribution among that 1%. Like how much does that 95% go down if we limit it to the top 0.1%? 0.01%?
Seems very unlikely. Suppose that global population is 7 billion. One percent is 70 million then. Neither “you and me” or “EU and me” are good analogies. The population of the EU is ~450 million, the population of the US is 330 million - with a bunch of additional “western” countries lumped in, let’s say - one billion. That is 14% of the global population, far above 1%.
The examined 1% includes people who are better not characterized as “being able to afford browsing Lemmy”, but rather being able to afford multiple households in a developed country (or more in an under-developed country). More or less: “people who can come up with one megabuck if they badly want”.
Some informative graphics, which by the way contradict the title claim of the post. I don’t know which one is right, the title says 1% = 95%, but Wikipedia says 1% = 46%. And it looks bad the other way too, since 55% = 1%…
FYI (and I expect to be downvoted because y’all don’t want to hear this), but when an article talks about the “global 1%” it’s probably talking about YOU.
Came here to mention this, but I learned I’m only in the top 1% of income and not wealth so I feel a little better about myself.
FYI (and I expect to be downvoted because y’all don’t want to hear this), but when an article talks about the “global 1%” it’s probably talking about YOU.
Yes, you. And me. And probably most of the people reading this, who live in the US or another Western country and consider themselves “middle class.” WE are the global 1%.
From https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich :
Also, if you prefer to measure by wealth instead of income, that’s lower than you think, too. I’m having trouble finding a more recent figure, but as of 2018, the threshold to be considered global 1% in terms of net worth was only $871,320. No, didn’t typo: it really is only hundreds of thousands, not millions or billions.
(The billionaires are more like the 0.01%.)
This is some wild reverse temporarily embarrassed millionaire bullshit right here.
No matter how many times you repeat this responsability shifting nonsense, it won’t ever make the people earning 60k responsible for what billionaires are doing.
Maybe visualising the scale of the numbers being discussed will help you see what a joke your comment is.
(E: fixed link)
deleted by creator
Yes, billionaires are bad, but so are you.
You are just butthurt to find out that you are part of the 1% problem.
Except we’re not and you’re just wrong.
We control our weath. We decided where to spend and where to invest.
We are the baddies.
This has some hardcore original sin vibes. If the argument is that we are bad people merely for existing in this country regardless of our actions, then the argument is in bad faith and is only intended to tear down people who would otherwise wish to help.
Do you buy local grown food?
Do you eat at mom n pops rather than chain restaurants?
Is your furniture artisan or IKEA.
Do you work for a woman or The Man?
Etc.
After you leave home and are self supporting, your sins are your own doing.
Ok my investments have all tanked so I guess I’m an insurgent working to tear down the system from within 🤷♂️
I don’t think your shares losing value counts, unless you are the root cause.
However if you are in ESG focused funds then (in theory) you get a pass .
But what’s your point? Are people making $60k/year causing world hunger through artificial scarcity or is it the greed and mental illness of the capitalist class?
The math doesn’t even math though. It’s 80 million people, globally. Are we to believe no other country contributes to this number? The entire rest of the “Western world” doesn’t contribute at all?
i’m not sure, but the middle class in my third world country doesnt have even close to the buying power of the western middle class.
That’s not how purchasing power parity works. You compare the incomes with the same power, no matter what class they are in their regional economy.
thats sort of what i mean. if i were to compare it like that, only our 1% would be on par with the western middle class.
Yeah, but there’s still the issue that half the US fits that 60k metric and that’s roughly 160 million people, or around 80 million working adults. So more than 1 percent of the global population right there. As I said above, the math doesn’t math. This myth discounts the entirety of Europe and East Asia (China actually follows the US in number of high net worth people).
There’s a way to talk about the difference in services and standards of living but spreading myths isn’t it.
1% of 8 billion is only 80 million. I wouldn’t say most Americans are in the 1% when the 80 million is spread around the world.
I don’t know how this keeps getting trotted out and up voted. I swear it gets dunked on every time.
Not just Americans. First world nations in general. That’s about 20% of the population in there, so the top 5% of US, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. We’re talking the upper middle class. $100K pre-tax gets you there easily, and thanks to rising prices of housing, I doubt most of them feel very rich at all.
The billionaires are holding big numbers as well, and there’s a few of those dotted around the world, but I’d imagine they’re mostly concentrated in first world countries. If you can live anywhere, why would you live in a craphole?
Only $800k net worth? Who the hell in middle class America has that? If they did, then homeownership would be less of an issue.
Homeowners near retirement age, basically. Much of that net worth would be their home value, and the rest would be in their 401k/IRA.
(Keep in mind that in order to achieve a “modest but comfortable” $40k/year middle-class retirement, you need $1M assets (not including your residence) to achieve a 4% safe withdrawal rate. Basically, you have to be a millionaire by retirement just to avoid poverty.)
i personally don’t know any of those people
deleted by creator
I don’t feel like an oligarch.
Yeah, where’s my yacht?
Not quite. 1% of global population is ~80 million people. There are about a billion people in the highly developed nations (US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and some minor others). So the top 8% of the golden billion, if we assume all in the US, the top ~25% of the country.
That “study” is a charity trying to guilt people into giving money. When you adjust for PPP it becomes quite a different story. The media loves it because it drives clicks but it’s literally just a calculator to guilt you and a list of approved charities.
This is what Oxfam has to say, from the actual article.
This is literally everything.
Aside from the bullshit religion is responsible for, the vast majority of the issues with the whole world is down to this. Government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation.
Most Americans won’t have that much wealth even in retirement.
OK so I’m a millennial worth $-35,600, that’s a negative net worth thanks to student loans and the fact that owning anything is outside of my shirt on my back is basically been priced out.
So a net worth of close to $900,000 is feeling a lot like a whole fuck ton of money to me. And probably a lot of other people nowhere fucking near that.
Just cause we live in “western” countries does not make it immediately that we are anywhere near the 1% either. It’s 1% for a reason. Just more of that 1% live in western worlds cause that’s where they want to live. Don’t think of it as some slam dunk.
Middle class people worth 800 grand these days, and earn over 60 grand where you live? Damn.
Upper middle class maybe, sure, but middle class mostly doesn’t exist any more, mostly it’s people scraping by on a mortgage trying to act like they’re still middle class :-(
wheres my superyacht
Oh thank God I’m still not the 1%. Average wage in the US is 45k and I’m not even making that
Average wage in the US is a lot more than 45k. Sorry to hear about your financial situation, we don’t even try to make the economy work for most people.
“The national average salary in the U.S. in Q4 of 2023 was $59,384”
I’d say it’s also relative to an area’s COL. Not technically, but practically. Sure I’m living great compared to many. The kleptocrats are the ones killing us all, including the habitat they need to survive. But hey, as long as they live longest with the most money, it’s all cake.
In addition to the problems with this that others have stated, this also ignores the wealth distribution among that 1%. Like how much does that 95% go down if we limit it to the top 0.1%? 0.01%?
Seems very unlikely. Suppose that global population is 7 billion. One percent is 70 million then. Neither “you and me” or “EU and me” are good analogies. The population of the EU is ~450 million, the population of the US is 330 million - with a bunch of additional “western” countries lumped in, let’s say - one billion. That is 14% of the global population, far above 1%.
The examined 1% includes people who are better not characterized as “being able to afford browsing Lemmy”, but rather being able to afford multiple households in a developed country (or more in an under-developed country). More or less: “people who can come up with one megabuck if they badly want”.
Some informative graphics, which by the way contradict the title claim of the post. I don’t know which one is right, the title says 1% = 95%, but Wikipedia says 1% = 46%. And it looks bad the other way too, since 55% = 1%…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
Yes but what about the 1% if that 1%
Then tax the first world?
Came here to mention this, but I learned I’m only in the top 1% of income and not wealth so I feel a little better about myself.