Half of England is owned by < 1% of the population.

Did you know that if you took 100% of the wealth from the 1% richest in America, you could pay for ONE public service for ONE year.

Yeah, people aren't quite as wealthy as you think.
 
4K8KW10 said:
More workers in the production mean higher productivity rates and volume of goods. Nowhere, more workers means lower wages. That's just an excuse of the rich capitalist holders.
Click to expand...

I should have said "available workforce" rather than workforce. That is to say the pool of potential workers rather than actual workers. A larger pool of available workers absolutely leads to lower wages.

But you're wrong to claim that more workers means more productivity or volume of goods. The UK has high levels of employment but low productivity, why is that? And no company can produce exponentially larger volumes of goods, since there's a limited resource base and number of consumers.

In short, although I could have worded my original comment better, you're still wrong.
 
terley said:
Did you know that if you took 100% of the wealth from the 1% richest in America, you could pay for ONE public service for ONE year.

Yeah, people aren't quite as wealthy as you think.
Click to expand...

In 2007 it was estimated the top 1% of US citizens had 34.6% of all US wealth. In 2009 total US wealth was estimated at $54.2tn. This equates to the 1% having total wealth of $18.75tn. In 2015 the total Federal budget was $3.8tn. Based on these estimates the top 1% of US citizens could fund the entire Federal government for nearly 5 years.

That was with 5 minutes of googling and with outdated numbers. Your statement doesn't seem correct.
 
Schlong&Stable said:
I should have said "available workforce" rather than workforce. That is to say the pool of potential workers rather than actual workers. A larger pool of available workers absolutely leads to lower wages.

But you're wrong to claim that more workers means more productivity or volume of goods. The UK has high levels of employment but low productivity, why is that? And no company can produce exponentially larger volumes of goods, since there's a limited resource base and number of consumers.

In short, although I could have worded my original comment better, you're still wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong and saying that the UK has low productivity is complete nonsense contradicting to the fact that the UK has one of the highest wages in the world.
 
Pudney said:
In 2007 it was estimated the top 1% of US citizens had 34.6% of all US wealth. In 2009 total US wealth was estimated at $54.2tn. This equates to the 1% having total wealth of $18.75tn. In 2015 the total Federal budget was $3.8tn. Based on these estimates the top 1% of US citizens could fund the entire Federal government for nearly 5 years.

That was with 5 minutes of googling and with outdated numbers. Your statement doesn't seem correct.
Click to expand...

That data is very misleading, by the richest "owning" that money is a fallacy as it includes those people who are classed as being in-charge of limited liability companies (corporations)... Whilst those corporations are worth trillions, they are NOT classed as wealth and cannot be added to those figures, the only place you see these kind of statements are from left-leaning lists and articles.

There is a reason limited liability companies exist, the owners can go bankrupt, the factories can close, every semblence of physical property owning to that company can be lost.. but the company still exists as its own individual entity.

That is why they cannot be classed as "owned wealth"

In-fact the Billionaires of the world ammas a wealth of around $8tn not $54 and that is worldwide not just the US.

I dont know why you had to mention your googling, it is wrong...
 
terley said:
That data is very misleading, by the richest "owning" that money is a fallacy as it includes those people who are classed as being in-charge of limited liability companies (corporations)... Whilst those corporations are worth trillions, they are NOT classed as wealth and cannot be added to those figures, the only place you see these kind of statements are from left-leaning lists and articles.

There is a reason limited liability companies exist, the owners can go bankrupt, the factories can close, every semblence of physical property owning to that company can be lost.. but the company still exists as its own individual entity.

That is why they cannot be classed as "owned wealth"

In-fact the Billionaires of the world ammas a wealth of around $8tn not $54 and that is worldwide not just the US.

I dont know why you had to mention your googling, it is wrong...
Click to expand...

Ok, so if Bill Gates wanted to sell some Microsoft shares he wouldn't be able to do so?

Edit: obviously if we place your fictional restrictions on measures of wealth you may well be right.

Edit2: and the point of mentioning googling is that I'm not just plucking numbers out of thin air.
 
dirtybeatfreak said:
How their ancestors obtained the land is irrelevant, however untoward. That was how it was back then. Was it wrong? Of course, and it wouldn't be allowed at all nowadays. Still, it was owned by their family, would you decline any inheritance from your family if you knew 100 years ago, someone in the line did something dodgy? Nah, didn't think so. So your useless statement had no point relevant to what the discussion was about.
Click to expand...
yes guvner, sorry guvner, please don't throw us out guvner.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
lolwut?

not sure if serious.

farmers are minted. every one around here has knocked down their old farmhouse and built a modern 5-6 bedroom mansion on their land and they all drive range rovers, etc.
Click to expand...

A 6 bed house is not actually particularly expensive to build if you already have the land to put it on. Particularly for a Farmer who is likely to be in a position to do a fair amount of the work himself (Groundwork/Site-preparation/etc)

Oh, and Range Rovers are cheap compared to much of today's farm equipment. The tractor dealer probabally threw in a free one as part of the deal for a new pea harvester or whatever :p

(Pea Harvester in 1980 was over £200,000. I shudder to think what one might cost today! And no, you cant contract it out. You have to have the machine on site and pretty much warmed up and ready to go at harvest time. When the buyer from Birds Eye says "go". You have about 6 hours to get the entire crop to the freezer plant or the deal is off! I visited a pea farmer in the early 80's around harvest time and frantic doesn't even begin to describe it :eek: )
 
4K8KW10 said:
No, you are wrong and saying that the UK has low productivity is complete nonsense contradicting to the fact that the UK has one of the highest wages in the world.
Click to expand...

We might have high productivity, but the growth of it after 2008 has been terrible.

And growth is all that matters.
 
Apparently I own a few inches in Scotland. I'm a Laird too supposedly. You peasants better keep out! :mad:
 
Psycho Sonny said:
lolwut?

not sure if serious.

farmers are minted. every one around here has knocked down their old farmhouse and built a modern 5-6 bedroom mansion on their land and they all drive range rovers, etc.
Click to expand...

Never go full retard on the internet, people will see how stupid you are! C'mon man, this is internet 101 :(
 
Fine said:
wait , are farmers really rich?
Click to expand...

Yep, they're all building 5-6 bedroom mansions and all drive range rovers etc, didn't you see The Oracle's post I quoted? One must not question The Oracle. It is all knowing, omnipresent. It exists in all forms and all timelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom