# 1% of population owns 80% of wealth is BS



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

70% of the worlds wealth is single detached homes which is not part of the equation.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Interesting. where did you get this from.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Most of these statements come from the USA. Seems people think the rest of the world is the same...then you get countries like Russia where everyone is equal, except for the elite who own everything.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

On the news several days ago...
'Canada had around 10,840 residents worth $30 million or more including their investable assets in 2017'
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-wealth-high-net-worthy-1.4814907

A number of these folks are billionaires. So a pretty small chunk of people own a pretty big chunk of wealth - in fact about a trillion dollars.

Single family homes are often heavily mortgaged but are a significant contributor to net worth for the average Canadian as they get older and debt gets paid down.

Median net worth in Canada for a family( not individual) is about 300,000.( not average)

Total net worth of Canadian families is about 10.3 trillion.

Given 10,840 folks are worth about a billion, total Cdn net worth of families is 10.3 trillion and we have approx 35.4 million people...

some very crude math with rounding
.03% of Cdn has 9.7% of net worth.

So likely 1% could easily have most of wealth. Not sure if it is 1:80 ratio in Canada as our wealth spread is flatter than many countries.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Pluto said:


> Interesting. where did you get this from.


 Howe street Ross Kay interview Sept 10th . Ross also stated the price of homes was down for August rather then up which was reported. The reason being there were higher end homes sold in August. Anyone interested in real estate can learn a lot from Ross Kay


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

This pyramid structure of wealth is a bi-product of capitalism and unless you change our economic system you cannot change this pyramid. 

You can improve the wealth of the lower levels of the population but only when you improve the upper levels as well. Most forms of redistribution usually results in inflation and will erode the amount of wealth available for everyone, although the lower levels can see some marginal improvement if done correctly.

Only when the production of goods and services are increased will the poor be sustainably better off, but as I said, to do this you need to give incentive for the wealthy to want to improve their own lot in life or it will not happen or be sustainable. That is just a law of capitalism so don't look at this divide as a problem but more a solution.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

lonewolf :) said:


> 70% of the worlds wealth is single detached homes which is not part of the equation.


So what's your point? Whatever way you want to calculate, there is no doubt that a small percentage of people are wealthy and a large percentage of people are poor. That as noted, is what capitalism is all about.

Unless you have a better idea of how to run the world and distribute wealth more evenly, while at the same time taking into account human nature, I don't see what the point of your post.

Human nature tells us that if we see an opportunity to improve our lot, we will work to do so. If you take away that incentive in some way, we will simply have no reason to work as hard. That's why communism which is fine in theory, does not work in practice.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Heaven forbid if we use actual data...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/canada-1-per-cent-highest-paid-workers-compare/article36383159/

To be a 1% in Canada only requires you to earn a quarter million dollars a year. Far cry from billionaires status. 

There are, in fact just over 100 billionaires in Canada. 

https://www.canadianbusiness.com/li...t-people/100-richest-canadians-complete-list/

And some of those don’t actually live in Canada. 

As for wealth inequality, that will always happen, even in communist states. The cream rises to the top and the dregs sink to the bottom. Certain people will always succeed and others will always fail.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> Heaven forbid if we use actual data...
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/canada-1-per-cent-highest-paid-workers-compare/article36383159/
> 
> ...


When I was a working guy, it wasn't hard to figure out who did all the complaining about the 'inequity' of what they were paid etc. Those who didn't get the raise or the promotion, etc. and who never considered the fact that it was because they weren't as good as that other guy. 

I happened to work in sales. That presents a very clear picture I think of how people are quick to say one thing but slow to act accordingly and put their 'money where their mouth is'. 

I made a sale that was the single largest sale in the history of the company at that time. I got a pat on the back, dinner with the President and his wife and yeah, a raise pretty much promised come my year end appraisal. That made me think about how I was being paid vs. the next guy. So I negotiated with the company to stop paying me a salary and start paying me on commission. If I didn't produce, I wouldn't make any money. Simple, merit based income.

Now ask those who think the wealth should be distributed more 'fairly' if they are willing to accept being paid purely on what they produce and see what they say. I think we all know the answer. Meritocracy is something that would probably see an even more biased division of wealth than exists today. We generally pay people equally based on the 'average' expectation of performance and that benefits the underachiever while penalizing the overachiever. I think the majority of people should think about that before asking for a change. LOL


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Capitalism is evolving and will continue to do so.

People are electing populist governments who will implement more socialist programs into their economies.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Its all pointless if you cant balance the annual budget. You can be wealthy beyond your imagination. But, with all the personal, corporate, municipal, provincial & federal debt just constantly accumulating, really the rich peoples dollars are depreciating every day. They are poor too when the fiat dollar implodes.... currencies as we know them cannot continue the way they are.

There is a day of reckoning coming and the poor people wont care. The wealthy people will be mad as they stand to lose everything.

Just my 2c & until the fiat currencies implode yes there will be people with more than me... there will also be people with less - its part of life & you should find a way to get good with it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It’s not like the wealthy are sitting on loads of fiat currency. For the most part they own assets. Things like companies which produce goods and services which people will always need, real estate, hard assets, money in different countries, etc.

The rich will remain rich despite what the poor do to the economy. They can also afford to leave the sinking ship long before they get into the last of the lifeboats.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Heaven forbid if we use actual data...
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/canada-1-per-cent-highest-paid-workers-compare/article36383159/
> 
> ...


Interesting articles. 

I generally define wealth to net worth.
I see a lot of articles that use income to determine wealth where they say if you make more than X you are wealthy or if you have assets of Y you are wealthy. 
Income does not necessarily translate to wealth if net worth is the definition. Lots of high earners don't have a pot to pee in. Do you consider them wealthy?

Pareto's principle holds true in almost everything.(80/20 rule) although it is often 90/10 or 70/30 or some permutation.

Whether it is your diet, investments, sales, etcetc.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> So what's your point?


 The number is calculated leaving out the largest asset class that makes up the worlds wealth


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

twa2w said:


> Pareto's principle holds true in almost everything.(80/20 rule) although it is often 90/10 or 70/30 or some permutation.
> 
> .


 True in market also 80/20, 90/10 rule in cycles 80/90% of the price advance or decline happens in 20/10% of the time it takes cycle


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Probably 10% of the population is responsible for 90% of production. Take away the highly productive incentive to produce & production will drop by 80 - 90 %.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

twa2w said:


> Interesting articles.
> 
> I generally define wealth to net worth.
> I see a lot of articles that use income to determine wealth where they say if you make more than X you are wealthy or if you have assets of Y you are wealthy.
> ...


None of those metrics truly identify what wealth is. Wealth is not an amount of capital and wealth is not a level of income. Wealth is actually the difference between the rich and the poor. If everyone had a $1,000,000 net worth, that net worth would not be worth anything. If everyone earned $250,000 per year, that income would be at the poverty level in the society where it existed.

No, what wealth really is, is your ability to convince someone else to do something for you or to give you something that was theirs. That is all wealth is and all it will ever be.

Now with that better definition in mind, do people actually think that reducing this wealth divide, is actually going to help the most people? No it would just hurt the many to help the few. That is all it has ever done and all it can ever do.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

The bible nailed it 1000 plus years ago the poor will always be with us. Lotto winners have one of the highest suicide rates someone can win 10 s or 100 s of millions & in a few years be broke then get depressed & commit suicide. Trying to make the productive support the unproductive that destroy wealth can bring down the system.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> ...then you get countries like Russia where everyone is equal, except for the elite who own everything.


You still live in Cold War times?! "everyone is equal" was slogan of USSR , but in reality, it was very likely that "1% of population owns 80% of wealth" . In nowadays Russia , there is a real capitalism (not like in Canada that closer to Cuba than to Russia ), but still very likely that "1% of population owns 80% of wealth"...
imho, "very likely that "1% of population owns 80% of wealth" is true for all countries from Cuba to US , so it's regardless of political system


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

That was my point gibor. There are the avid socialists here who still believe in taking from the rich to give to the new rich. Oh, sorry, I meant redistribution of wealth so everyone would have an "equal" share. 

That being said, you're 1% owning 80% doesn't hold up in Canada despite what you want to believe, at least according to stats Canada.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> That was my point gibor. There are the avid socialists here who still believe in taking from the rich to give to the new rich. Oh, sorry, I meant redistribution of wealth so everyone would have an "equal" share.
> 
> That being said, you're 1% owning 80% doesn't hold up in Canada despite what you want to believe, at least according to stats Canada.


OK, didn't get your point . The only difference that in socialist-communist countries it's a big secret, in capitalists countries - it's much less secret (see Forbes) . The point is no political system can change human nature


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> OK, didn't get your point . The only difference that in socialist-communist countries it's a big secret, in capitalists countries - it's much less secret (see Forbes) . The point is no political system can change human nature


True, but in countries like Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc, the wealth distribution curve is flattened somewhat compared to less socialistic. May explain why these countries are supposedly happier.
There is likely a balance somewhere. Too big a wealth gap, you may get a revolution.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The wealthy own the assets but they don't do the actual work that earns the profits.

The wealthy must "buy" the labor from others. Time is a saleable commodity.

A fair distribution of profits is how the wealthy pay for the labor and it keeps the system working.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Education of the masses is important. Also after grade school education and trades that targets useful skills and future needs is important.

Democratic political system with a true rule of law and following the constitution.

Paying attention to a countries debt and trade deals.

Stopping the scamming and manipulation of money system. Stopping company heads from lobbying, bribing governments and scamming their way to the top.

There is a lot that can be done to help a country prosper that doesn't include simply taxing the rich.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Employees seldom understand all the costs associated with running a business. Nor do they have any clue as to the actual profits. They never consider that they are paid for vacations, sick days, days when the employee "mails it in", when there is no billable hours for them, the "slippage" (theft from employees yes those office supplies cost money), overhead, rent, insurance, taxes, etc. Anyone who thinks that business owners do nothing but exploit their workers is beyond clueless. 

Fortunately, in Canada, any employee is free to invest in companies and share in more profits. Unfortunately, most don't want to "take the risk" of owning a business or investing...yet still expect to profit from those who aren't afraid to take risks.

As a consultant, I've met many employees who thought they were being taken advantage on by their employers. They often try to do it themselves, often attempting to steal contracts on their way out...of course most businesses fail within three years for a reason...reality of running a business sets in fairly hard. They generally go back to being employees much more humbled. 

Of course they probably go on to vote for the government who bribes them the best with their own (well grandchildren's) money...never worrying about the simple question...

Where does the money come from?

Too many people worrying about themselves and not the reality or consequences of their actions. If a business runs out of money during a downturn, that's the end of the business and all the jobs it provides. Eventually, governments will also have to face that reality just like the PIGS nations.


----------



## canew90 (Jul 13, 2016)

Who cares about those who are the top earners or even the lowest earners. Makes for interesting reading but in no way affect what I do or how I feel. I just care if my income is more than what I need to cover expenses and does that income keep growing.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wealth = there IS enough wealth in the world being created.

Inequality = distribution of the wealth IS failing to produce satisfactory results.

Solution = wages can be increased or government can redistribute income.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Other solution the people complaining can stop and rechannel that energy into being productive and doing something about their precived problem.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

twa2w said:


> True, but in countries like Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc, the wealth distribution curve is flattened somewhat compared to less socialistic. May explain why these countries are supposedly happier.
> There is likely a balance somewhere. Too big a wealth gap, you may get a revolution.


Not really ... The happiest country in the World in 2018 was given to Finland. Despite its socialist nature
Richest people in Finland
Antti Herlin - 3.6 billion. Antti Herlin with a net worth 3.6 billion is the richest person in Finland. ...
Ilkka Herlin - 1.2 billion. ...
Niklas Herlin - 1.15 billion. ...
Ilona Herlin - 1.1 billion. ...
Antti Aarnio-Wihuri - 1billion.

so, I won;t be surprised if in Finland also "1% of population owns 80% of wealth "


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I don't care about those 1% people. I only care about me and mine.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> Not really ... The happiest country in the World in 2018 was given to Finland. Despite its socialist nature
> Richest people in Finland
> Antti Herlin - 3.6 billion. Antti Herlin with a net worth 3.6 billion is the richest person in Finland. ...
> Ilkka Herlin - 1.2 billion. ...
> ...


I didn't say there were no rich people in these countries, just that the curve was flattened. I spent a lot of time there this summer staying with relatives, as well as in Scandinavia. The attitude is different.
There is a far larger gap in the USA between the rich and poor than there is in Finland. Yes there are poor in Finland and rich people too but far less poor, and the rich aren't as conspicuous somehow. Certainly less conspicuous consumption and happy with less flashy things. Can't really put my finger on on it. 

Personally, I think the happiness index is off. Lots of non- smiling Finns and Scandinavians. More of a stoic contentment with their lot in life than a bubbly happiness. Canadians, at least in the West seem happier. But this could just be a cultural thing about showing emotions and not comfortable interacting with strangers.


----------

