this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2022
16 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7178 readers
491 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

They're the ones buying up all the assets when the rest of the population becomes insolvent.

[–] Aria@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Yes but are they included? If the top .1% become richer, does the graph go up?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Oh I see, I would imagine they're not since the top .1% aren't making money from wage labour. These people make profit from their capital. They're the actual capitalists in the country.

[–] Aria@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But the USA's expert pay is also completely disproportionate. Meaning the 1%/.1% of wage earners earn very high wages that doesn't exist in the same sphere as the average person's wage.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The gulf between high paid wage labourers and the truly rich is astronomical. A highly paid professional is far closer to a homeless person in terms of wealth than to the 0.1% that owns the country. Here's a good breakdown https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/top-wealth-in-america-new-estimates-and-implications-for-taxing-the-rich/

[–] Aria@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yes I understand, but the difference between a 15K/yr wage (USA mode wage) and a 300M/yr wage (Highest wage I found quickly, Sundar Pichai) is still big enough to impact statistics.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Sure, but in the end we end up looking at the median wage, and that's going down when considered in the context of purchasing power.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)