• umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      came here to comment just this.

      it couldnt have been earlier than 2016 that this number was close to 60%.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    FYI (and I expect to be downvoted because y’all don’t want to hear this), but when an article talks about the “global 1%” it’s probably talking about YOU.

    Yes, you. And me. And probably most of the people reading this, who live in the US or another Western country and consider themselves “middle class.” WE are the global 1%.

    From https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich :

    If you earn $60,000 a year after tax and you don’t have kids, you’re in the richest 1 percent of the world’s population.

    Also, if you prefer to measure by wealth instead of income, that’s lower than you think, too. I’m having trouble finding a more recent figure, but as of 2018, the threshold to be considered global 1% in terms of net worth was only $871,320. No, didn’t typo: it really is only hundreds of thousands, not millions or billions.


    (The billionaires are more like the 0.01%.)

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is some wild reverse temporarily embarrassed millionaire bullshit right here.

      No matter how many times you repeat this responsability shifting nonsense, it won’t ever make the people earning 60k responsible for what billionaires are doing.

      Maybe visualising the scale of the numbers being discussed will help you see what a joke your comment is.

      (E: fixed link)

    • skibidi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, you. And me. And probably most of the people reading this, who live in the US or another Western country

      Not quite. 1% of global population is ~80 million people. There are about a billion people in the highly developed nations (US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and some minor others). So the top 8% of the golden billion, if we assume all in the US, the top ~25% of the country.

    • Einstein@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      1% of 8 billion is only 80 million. I wouldn’t say most Americans are in the 1% when the 80 million is spread around the world.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know how this keeps getting trotted out and up voted. I swear it gets dunked on every time.

    • Obinice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Middle class people worth 800 grand these days, and earn over 60 grand where you live? Damn.

      Upper middle class maybe, sure, but middle class mostly doesn’t exist any more, mostly it’s people scraping by on a mortgage trying to act like they’re still middle class :-(

    • Xenny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh thank God I’m still not the 1%. Average wage in the US is 45k and I’m not even making that

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      In addition to the problems with this that others have stated, this also ignores the wealth distribution among that 1%. Like how much does that 95% go down if we limit it to the top 0.1%? 0.01%?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That “study” is a charity trying to guilt people into giving money. When you adjust for PPP it becomes quite a different story. The media loves it because it drives clicks but it’s literally just a calculator to guilt you and a list of approved charities.

      This is what Oxfam has to say, from the actual article.

      The immense concentration of wealth, driven significantly by increased monopolistic corporate power, has allowed large corporations and the ultrarich who exercise control over them to use their vast resources to shape global rules in their favor, often at the expense of everyone else.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      FYI (and I expect to be downvoted because y’all don’t want to hear this), but when an article talks about the “global 1%” it’s probably talking about YOU.

      Came here to mention this, but I learned I’m only in the top 1% of income and not wealth so I feel a little better about myself.

  • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    ‘Global Oligarchy’ Reigns as Top 1% Controls More Wealth Than Bottom 95% of Humanity

    Excellent wording.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The swine have gorged their fill

    Three thousand masters,

    all demanding their till

    They’ll call us savages

    Cause we eat what we kill

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I mashed it together from some Fit For An Autopsy songs. Every lyric they write just slaps with the times.

  • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Let’s invite them all to a wedding of a fake international pop star and start playing the rains of castemere.

    I hear billionaire pot pie tastes great. The ketamine cooks right out.

  • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Pretty soon that devine right of kings and thing is going to look laughable by comparison.

    Kings were nowhere near this rich, or powerful.