# World's Wealthiest People



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is staggering that 1,826 people hold 7 Trillion dollars in wealth, up almost a trillion from last year. 

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-worlds-richest-people-2015-181201159.html


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

sags said:


> It is staggering that 1,826 people hold 7 Trillion dollars in wealth, up almost a trillion from last year.
> 
> https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-worlds-richest-people-2015-181201159.html


The majority of them seem to be first generation wealthy (ie they created all their wealth). The rest are second generation, their parents created it and they continued it.

If you count all the wealth in the world, it amounts to 241 trillion. There's always going to be wealthy people. What amount would be acceptable for the richest 1826 people on the world to own?


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Top Canadian - 25th -David Thomson


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

First generation wealth now...........second generation money in the future.

With the passage of time, all wealth becomes increasingly distant from those who created it.

What would be fair is a good question.

I think maybe start at ground level, and create a system that distributed wealth more evenly between owners and employees would be a good place to start.

Maybe the whole concept of "wages" should be gradually eliminated and people should work for % of company profits........sharing in the success or failure as owners do.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

sags said:


> I think maybe start at ground level, and create a system that distributed wealth more evenly between owners and employees would be a good place to start.


Why would anyone bother starting a business if they had to share their profits with their employees who invested nothing and risked nothing in that venture?

Those who risk should reap the rewards.

As it should be.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Maybe the whole concept of "wages" should be gradually eliminated and people should work for % of company profits........sharing in the success or failure as owners do.


They have that system now .... buy shares in the company you work for so you're in on the success or failure.


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

sags said:


> First generation wealth now...........second generation money in the future.
> 
> With the passage of time, all wealth becomes increasingly distant from those who created it.
> 
> ...


I think it's against the labour law to offer employment and pay below the minimum wage. So your socialist Model would not even be legal. 

Some business people mortgage their home to get money to operate their business. Would the employees be expected to do that too? If not, they are NOT entitled to he reward of a success business. They are only entitled to their labour cost, ie hourly wages / salary.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Tall Poppy Syndrome.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Toronto.gal said:


> Tall Poppy Syndrome.


I had to look this one up. Amazing to live so many years and have never have heard the phase before:stupid:


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MoreMiles said:


> I think it's against the labour law to offer employment and pay below the minimum wage. So your socialist Model would not even be legal.


You mean like "work long hours for stock options and no pay"?


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

lightcycle said:


> Why would anyone bother starting a business if they had to share their profits with their employees who invested nothing and risked nothing in that venture?
> 
> Those who risk should reap the rewards.
> 
> As it should be.


The cash investment is one of the elements of success, but there are other elements equally important.

Time, labor and expertise of employees, infrastructure to produce and transport goods, access to markets etc.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

sags said:


> The cash investment is one of the elements of success, but there are other elements equally important.
> 
> Time, labor and expertise of employees, infrastructure to produce and transport goods, access to markets etc.


But you didn't answer the question though: 

What is the incentive to risk your capital or apply for a loan that could potentially bankrupt you in order to start a business if you're only going to compensated as much as an employee who risked nothing?

Why can't we all be employees, then?

The answer is because then there would be no businesses to work for. So all the time, labour and expertise of employees would be idle. Which addresses your point about what is more important - the investment and risk into starting a business, or working for that business.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

What would happen during a recession where companies lose money, would the employees be willing to chip in, work for free, even pay to keep the company afloat? How about when there are no contracts, but the employee wants to get paid year round (think seasonal companies, or ones with boom/bust cycles).

It's always easy for employees to complain they aren't getting their "fair share", especially when they get paid every two weeks...as a business owner, I can tell you some companies don't get paid every two weeks, but the banks, government, utilities, and employees all still want their "fair share". 

Without profits, how's an owner supposed to ride out the cycles?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If it wouldn't work...........why does it work ?

Senior executives work for a salary plus bonuses, presumably based on the corporations profit.

Do as we say..........not as we do ?

Where is the line that separates for whom it will work and for whom it won't ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

One person, who can cook the books when required is different than everyone.

Also, it doesn't work when there are corporate losses.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Where is the line that separates for whom it will work and for whom it won't ?


The line is set by those that own, or are in charge of running, the company ... it's their choice.


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

I like that Gates and Buffet are committed to giving it all away thoughtfully. That kind of wealth can create quite an endowment fund.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Warren Buffet has been quietly converting BRK shares to cash on an annual basis to fulfill his long term commitment to fund the charities he chose.

It would appear though, that he is making it faster than he can give it away..........


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Gates used to, I'm not sure if he still does, donate Microsoft software and products instead of actual money...he'd book the entire sale price of the software but, in reality, it cost him nothing while helping to ensure Microsoft products remained dominant in terms of market share.

Not saying it was a bad thing, but it's not the same as donating actual cash.

I always hate public speakers who "donate" $50k or whatever to the charity, then you find out they just waived their "speaker's fee".


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

I just read the comments section of the CBC on this article, and 9 out of 10 comments were about how billionaires cheated and screwed everyone to get that kind of wealth. Pretty much the same feeling on the street. 

I believe this is nothing but envy and ignorance.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Sags, you are a stock holder, likely of many companies. Are you willing to share profits of companies you own, with the employees?

T-Gal, you're right again.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The Forbes list is not definitive. They are making a lot of wild assumptions on private assets.. many which are illiquid and problematic to value.. Not everybody wants to gloat about their wealth and there are ways to downplay it.



Toronto.gal said:


> Tall Poppy Syndrome.


Buffet and Gates have spoken against inequality themselves. Tall poppies have nothing to do with a system that could be improved or replaced, like all others before it. Wealth will continue to concentrate more and more as a simple function of capitalism, like Monopoly. Globalization has accelerated it (like starting a game with a bunch of poor players, and printing money as you see fit etc..)

Profit sharing exists. There is no incentive for it with this much cheap labour.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

"When I was poor and I complained about inequality people said I was bitter, now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite."

So what does that make them?

It's quite possible downplay your wealth in many ways if you want to. Forbes isn't exactly the CIA. This list just sells magazines and strokes egos.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

m3s said:


> "When I was poor and I complained about inequality people said I was bitter, now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite."


In both cases, it's true. Someone poor who has the freedom to become rich cannot complain about inequality without appearing to be bitter. 

And someone who is rich cannot complain about inequality without actually giving up his/her wealth away to reduce that very inequality.

Complaining about inequality in a free society is illegitimate anyway. Wealth is not a zero sum game, and if everyone stopped complaining and started working instead to accumulate wealth, total wealth in society increases and benefits everyone.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

tenoclock said:


> Wealth is not a zero sum game


Agreed, but prestige and status *is* a zero sum game, and it's this fact that drives the politics of envy.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

Imagine if we had stopped Gates or Buffet from amassing that kind of wealth, and instead forcefully 'redistributed' it to the blackhole of government bureaucracy, foreign wars and a few peanuts to help the poor. I doubt they would actually be in a position today to save millions of lives around the world (which they are actually doing), despite increasing their wealth year over year. 

One needs to produce that kind of wealth first and it can only happen when people are free to do so, and 'society' does not send the taxman to take away most of it.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

Not sure if that was a reply to my post, but again I was not disagreeing, just explaining the attitudes behind those complaining of inequality.

We could all be fat and content and living high on the hog, but heaven forbid the next guy is fatter and more content and on a bigger pig than us. Because as you know, happiness *is* a competition...


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

lol, I agreed with you.

It's all about perspective. Most poor in North America are better of than 95% of the world population, have a higher standard of living and live in a free society where they actually have 'rights'. They also have the freedom to accumulate wealth.

But most do not realize this gift.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

lightcycle, 

I still believe we need competition, in material goods, because that's what drives the spirit to make everything in life better than it already is. 

What I don't like about many people is negative envy. Where people want to stop others from having more, rather than striving to have more themselves by earning it.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

One thing that gets lost in these types of discussions is the fact that more material possessions don't make you happier. After a certain point there's diminishing returns. Like "The Donald" who has his own Boeing 757. What would make him happier? An Air Bus 380? 

Some people understand the concept and are able to feel content with what they have, and for others there will never be enough. I feel sorry for those people rather than envious.


----------



## Islenska (May 4, 2011)

Sorta seconding your thoughts pwm and I don't want to sound like Mary Poppins but if you have health, fine family, social connections,blah , blah, you are wealthy or getting there, the rest is gravy!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I didn't know Mary Poppins was so self absorbed? Quick search of WHO claims some 2.6 billion people lack basic drinking water, sanitation and health. Gates claims that aiding those people to basic needs could improve the economy.



tenoclock said:


> Wealth is not a zero sum game, and if everyone stopped complaining and started working instead to accumulate wealth, total wealth in society increases and benefits everyone.


Non renewable resources are finite though. When the rule of law collapses as in some countries today and throughout human history since the beginning of civilization.. wealth is abandoned or taken by force. Survival of the richest?



pwm said:


> One thing that gets lost in these types of discussions is the fact that more material possessions don't make you happier. After a certain point there's diminishing returns.


I agree but I consider this the self destructive culture known as consumerism. Wealth can be used in other ways.. such as spending more time on leisure.. or retiring earlier to allow youth to thrive.. Doesn't have to be things.

What seems to be overlooked is that wealth is concentrating and an increasing rate. This is a function of the system, not evil doers. Maybe you are fine with it today but where do you draw the line down the road?


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

m3s said:


> Non renewable resources are finite though. When the rule of law collapses as in some countries today and throughout human history since the beginning of civilization.. wealth is abandoned or taken by force. Survival of the richest?



Finite only in theory, but not actually in practice. The Malthusian view of the world has lost it's credibility. They said once that human population would starve to death because food production would not keep up. After the invention of fertilizer - wrong. They also said we would run out of oil by now. Proven reserves keep on increasing every year because of better technology. So wrong again. Here you have the two most important commodities which are supposed to be finite and we use them like there is no tomorrow, yet their end is nowhere in sight. 

But coming onto wealth - most wealth is not in resources. It's not even in the owning of land. It's in human ingenuity. Businesses are much more than the sum of their parts - and that value is reflected in their valuation in the stock market. Most wealth of the billionaires is here, and any type of forceful redistribution only destroys the economy. 





m3s said:


> I agree but I consider this the self destructive culture known as consumerism. Wealth can be used in other ways.. such as spending more time on leisure.. or retiring earlier to allow youth to thrive.. Doesn't have to be things.


I agree with that - but most people like consumerism. Which is why they live paycheck to paycheck. And which is why they do not understand wealth and envy the wealthy. Delaying gratification and investing earnings is a sure fire way to wealth. Most people either don't like delaying gratification or they don't even understand it. I say it's the failure of the education system. 



m3s said:


> What seems to be overlooked is that wealth is concentrating and an increasing rate. This is a function of the system, not evil doers. Maybe you are fine with it today but where do you draw the line down the road?


It's concentrating, but not decreasing. Concentrating implicitly implies a fixed amount. It does not bother me that someone can earn so much money in a few years that they cannot even ever spend it no matter what. As long as everyone has the opportunity and freedom to achieve the same.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> You mean like "work long hours for stock options and no pay"?
> 
> 
> Cheers


 stock options is that a big reason why share buy backs are so popular lately.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Here is one example of income inequality.

This guy earns $100 million a month..............$68.5 million after taxes.

His wife is filing for divorce and wants $1 Million a month to support the "children's lifestyle".

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102472694


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

Wife wants one million dollars a month from his earnings. The government wants 32 million dollars a month from his earnings. :biggrin:


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

I'm in disbelief that someone actually earns $100mn a month !!!!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would like to see a copy of his pay cheque..........

Weekly...........Gross Income............$25,000,000

Bi-Weekly.......Gross Income............$50,000,000

Monthly..........Gross Income............$100,000,000

It is like winning a 1,000,000 dollar lottery ticket 5 times a day............every day except weekends.


----------

