5 ms·

The study doesn't say it went into the 1%'s pockets. It says it went to 2 places: 1) The salaries of corporate employees 2) Shareholders and capital owners Re

The study doesn't say it went into the 1%'s pockets. It says it went to 2 places: 1) The salaries of corporate employees 2) Shareholders and capital owners Regarding number 2: "Shareholders" would include anyone who owns any stock at all, including a lot of middle class people with a simple S&P 500 ETF in their portfolio. And the increase in productivity allowed more people to become capital owners, AKA entrepreneurs. The explosion in software entrepreneurs, for example.

lm28469 6mo ago
Then why are wealth inequalities exploding? Why are we just about to witness the first trillionaire? Because no matter what fairy tales you want to believe in your $20 "invested" in palantir won't make you a "shareholder" lmao
- matthest 6mo ago
  Wealth inequality is increasing, but the wealth isn't all flowing into the 1%'s pockets. Lots of middle class people have graduated into upper-middle class: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-of-a-booming-upper-middle-class/ https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-middle-clas... Wealth inequality is still a problem. But it's not just the people at the very top benefitting.
  - lm28469 6mo ago
    I don't think you understand what the 1% is, it's not your neighbour who has a nice house, a swimming pool and a ferrari... https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9444fd6a-dae6-11e7-b1ee-b99a8c8beca7.jpg?d=1020x756 https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9... https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Percent-of-Household-Wealth-Owned-by-Millionaires-and-Billionaires-1989-2019.svg https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020... https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CvQar/full.png https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CvQar/full.png https://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1415721490539/Wealth_line-chart.svg https://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1415721490539/Wealth_line-chart...
    - matthest 6mo ago
      Definitionally the 1% is people making ~$800k+ a year. Upper-middle class is people making ~$200k/year. A lot of people have moved from middle class to upper middle class over the last decade. Both those categories are outside the 1%.
      - kitten_mittens_ 6mo ago
        When did upper middle class start meaning upper class? Something like 90% of Americans identify as middle class now.
        pc86 6mo ago
        That's why someone's self-described position means nothing. Something like 80-85% of drivers describe themselves as "above average" at driving, too. The upper limit and the median of the household income quintiles as of 2022 are:[0] Lowest: $ 30,000 / $ 16,120 Second: $ 58,020 / $ 43,850 Middle: $ 94,000 / $ 74,730 Fourth: $153,000 / $119,900 Top: - / $277,300 I think getting into the weeds on whether $80k or $100k or $120k/yr is a middle class sort of misses the point, but at least with my eyes it is hard to argue you're middle class if you're making more than about $150k at the most. Even the GP, which I directionally agree with, says "upper-middle class is people making ~$200k/yr" but you're deep into the top quintile by that point, probably top 10%. I don't know what percentile I consider "upper middle" but it's definitely lower than top 10%. [0] https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quin...
      - pc86 6mo ago
        A good indicator that someone is simply being dogmatic and not arguing in good faith (e.g. actually trying to understand someone's POV, and being open to being proven wrong in their assumptions) is when it takes them 5-20 minutes to reply until a particularly good point is made and then they disappear into the ether.
        lm28469 6mo ago
  - conductr 6mo ago
    [dead]
jliptzin 6mo ago
#2 only works if the public is allowed to invest when the new technology is in its early stages, which is currently not the case. Microsoft went public in 1986 at a valuation of $2.3 billion (in today's dollars). What's OpenAI / Anthropic going to be worth by the time they IPO? $1 trillion? $2 trillion?
- matthest 6mo ago
  Eh, buying and holding the S&P 500 (the Vanguard Bogleheads strategy) has allowed a lot of people to retire early.
munificent 6mo ago
> Regarding number 2: "Shareholders" would include anyone who owns any stock at all, including a lot of middle class people with a simple S&P 500 ETF in their portfolio. Yes, but shares are not at all uniformly distributed. Tim Cook owns 3.28 million shares of AAPL. For comparison, the 50 million Vanguard customers have to divide 1.3 billion shares amongst them, averaging about 26 shares of AAPL each. > And the increase in productivity allowed more people to become capital owners, AKA entrepreneurs. The explosion in software entrepreneurs, for example. The majority of those end up getting bought by larger software companies. Overall capital ownership is increasingly concentrated among a small number of elites.

lm28469 6mo ago

Then why are wealth inequalities exploding? Why are we just about to witness the first trillionaire? Because no matter what fairy tales you want to believe in your $20 "invested" in palantir won't make you a "shareholder" lmao

matthest 6mo ago
Wealth inequality is increasing, but the wealth isn't all flowing into the 1%'s pockets. Lots of middle class people have graduated into upper-middle class: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-of-a-booming-upper-middle-class/ https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-middle-clas... Wealth inequality is still a problem. But it's not just the people at the very top benefitting.
- lm28469 6mo ago
  I don't think you understand what the 1% is, it's not your neighbour who has a nice house, a swimming pool and a ferrari... https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9444fd6a-dae6-11e7-b1ee-b99a8c8beca7.jpg?d=1020x756 https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9... https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Percent-of-Household-Wealth-Owned-by-Millionaires-and-Billionaires-1989-2019.svg https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020... https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CvQar/full.png https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CvQar/full.png https://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1415721490539/Wealth_line-chart.svg https://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1415721490539/Wealth_line-chart...
  - matthest 6mo ago
    Definitionally the 1% is people making ~$800k+ a year. Upper-middle class is people making ~$200k/year. A lot of people have moved from middle class to upper middle class over the last decade. Both those categories are outside the 1%.
    - kitten_mittens_ 6mo ago
      When did upper middle class start meaning upper class? Something like 90% of Americans identify as middle class now.
      - pc86 6mo ago
        That's why someone's self-described position means nothing. Something like 80-85% of drivers describe themselves as "above average" at driving, too. The upper limit and the median of the household income quintiles as of 2022 are:[0] Lowest: $ 30,000 / $ 16,120 Second: $ 58,020 / $ 43,850 Middle: $ 94,000 / $ 74,730 Fourth: $153,000 / $119,900 Top: - / $277,300 I think getting into the weeds on whether $80k or $100k or $120k/yr is a middle class sort of misses the point, but at least with my eyes it is hard to argue you're middle class if you're making more than about $150k at the most. Even the GP, which I directionally agree with, says "upper-middle class is people making ~$200k/yr" but you're deep into the top quintile by that point, probably top 10%. I don't know what percentile I consider "upper middle" but it's definitely lower than top 10%. [0] https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quin...
    - pc86 6mo ago
      A good indicator that someone is simply being dogmatic and not arguing in good faith (e.g. actually trying to understand someone's POV, and being open to being proven wrong in their assumptions) is when it takes them 5-20 minutes to reply until a particularly good point is made and then they disappear into the ether.
      - lm28469 6mo ago
- conductr 6mo ago
  [dead]

jliptzin 6mo ago

#2 only works if the public is allowed to invest when the new technology is in its early stages, which is currently not the case. Microsoft went public in 1986 at a valuation of $2.3 billion (in today's dollars). What's OpenAI / Anthropic going to be worth by the time they IPO? $1 trillion? $2 trillion?

matthest 6mo ago
Eh, buying and holding the S&P 500 (the Vanguard Bogleheads strategy) has allowed a lot of people to retire early.

munificent 6mo ago

> Regarding number 2: "Shareholders" would include anyone who owns any stock at all, including a lot of middle class people with a simple S&P 500 ETF in their portfolio. Yes, but shares are not at all uniformly distributed. Tim Cook owns 3.28 million shares of AAPL. For comparison, the 50 million Vanguard customers have to divide 1.3 billion shares amongst them, averaging about 26 shares of AAPL each. > And the increase in productivity allowed more people to become capital owners, AKA entrepreneurs. The explosion in software entrepreneurs, for example. The majority of those end up getting bought by larger software companies. Overall capital ownership is increasingly concentrated among a small number of elites.