I need these statistics for other countries. Especially Germany. We seem to struggle to understand it as well.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
964 points (97.4% liked)
Bluesky
1183 readers
250 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
Wealth is not money.
Nor can you redistribute the combined assets of a population, but that would be deliberate obtuseness in translating the point of the message if you think that's what it's advocating for.
Seriously, if someone reads this and thinks "we should literally redistribute wealth so everyone has a half million bucks" you have the civic acuity of a mollusk.
This is a point about how wealth/assets/value-from-work is being horded by a select few. This line is to highlight that inequality is much worse than you think.
Pretty much most Lemmy users are mollusks who are either 15yo skipping school or 35yo living in mom's basement.
No really, you're right, the reason this is never going to be a rival to reddit because this site network doesn't have the diversity sauce to actually bring in large scale users. Reddit didn't explode until they made it feel unified and comfortable for women and older people to join the conversations. This site is like reddit was about 15 years ago, a deep basement of nerdy little boys sperging out about linux and underground memes, the only difference is some of the communities here have a much further left slant and reddit appealed to... absolute scum incels and illegal porn traders.
Man, we just can't win. I'd love a site where they just check if you're a reasonable, sane adult before you can get in. Like how Somethingawful had a $10 gate at the front which kept the bullshit down, and when someone did decide to burn their $10, it was a public spectacle and they were driven in shame.... to form 4chan which is partially responsible for the destruction of democracy.
There were multiple attempts to gatekeep a nice community with a payment, but the majority of people today don't want to pay for anything. The only huge exception is Suicide Girls.
And it's the same everywhere! Lemmings like to talk about "enshitifications" and other bullshit, but the reality is that everyone is fine with slave labour and damage to the environment when jeans from Primark cost £15, but jeans from Hebtroco, made in the UK from UK garments and paying decent wages are £150+.
Cheap/free is the enemy of good.
We don't need to redistribute any wealth. We only need to disappear the wealth of the billionaires, and the billionaires themselves just to be sure they do not rise again.
We don’t need to redistribute any wealth
I think part of the problem is that we confuse "wealth" as "money" and not "capital".
We don't need to raid a bunch of bank accounts and hand out big checks to everyone.
We do need to give workers equity in the companies where they work. We need to give them transparency with regard to how the businesses operate. And we need to give them lines of credit such that they can operate these businesses independently of the private banking sector.
That is the real wealth of the modern American economy. Not the Petrodollar.
That's the point of the message. You can't "redistribute wealth" in the shape it's in now without some kind of thanos gem.
But if more people understand that if they work and contribute to society, they are entitled to getting more of that back, we make small steps towards people understanding that their local representatives need to attach themselves to making our labor actually count for something in our lives.
We work more than ever and have less to show for it than ever. This is something we could change if wanted.
Even so, this is a good way to illustrate that the typical person is well below the average amount of wealth.
You gotta grease the wheels. Americans are very self-centered, they won't put in effort for somebody else's profit (knowingly), but if they're told they themselves can get almost $500k they'll be more inclined to do it.
You're absolutely right and I wish we had an opposition party that knew how to frame this messaging. Liberal Democrats are stuck in "civility politics" and messaging that everything is fair and good and we need to all "do our fair share" and that slides off the backs of most self-centered people, which is like... all of them.
The right has won so much ground because they have both fashioned a selfish base, and nurtured them and sent them messages of what they're entitled to. Even if those entitlements are batshit and stupid, they still successfully got a loud enough segment of the population to make demands that we're now in a hostage situation where about 20% of us represent all of us.
Except the wealth you're talking about is ownership, not actual money. Redistributing it won't give everybody a pile of Scrooge McDuck coins, it will give them stocks and other asset ownership worth half a million. To spend any of that, they would have to sell shares to somebody for cash and spend the cash, which they can only do once. After a flurry of liquidating and spending, you'd end up with a lot of people who have more stuff but are otherwise back where they were, and other people who spend less and gradually accumulate a ton of shares to become rich.
Well, if everyone has equal shares, and trading them becomes as common as exchanging money, you could just use your shares (or fractions of it) to buy something at the grocery.
I am sure that people will find solutions for what you describe, if they want to.
But sure if you don't effectively prevent developing wealth-inequality after you redistributed it, it will slowly move back to a similar situation, but not sure what your point here is, you cannot simply fix capitalism by redistributing wealth one time and not changing the underlying incentive structure. But that is not what is expressed here.
Fine then, create a mechanism that lets people spend shares at the grocery store. Some people will spend all or most of theirs and others will focus on accumulating more, which will result in a repeat of wealth inequity. I think dangling a big number with a dollar sign in front of it as a marketing tool is playing to the spending mentality, which bothers me. I would rather inspire people to look for an end of the scarcity era, when money will be either mostly or entirely irrelevant. I think making profits and greed obsolete through innovation is more realistic than proposing to take wealth away from the class that has almost all the power to resist that.
Sure, but you might be missing the point of the post in the picture. This isn't about solving wealthy inequality, it is about demonstrating how bad the inequality is.
You have to develop better tax policies to fight it, policies that takes more money from the rich and feeds it into the government, for it to redistribute where it is needed most, the social security and welfare services.
I know the point of the reposted post was to show how bad wealth inequality is, but I'm pretty sure the point of "This is how we should be selling redistribution" is about actually doing redistribution.
His point is that a lot of people are really stupid and financially irresponsible and it doesn't matter if you give them the wealth in stocks or assets or cash it's going to be used up fast. Meanwhile those who are smart with their money will use it to accumulate more and in a few years you'll be back at square one.
Are you saying the solution for this is to continually redistribute wealth? Do you understand what you are saying?
"people would just have a little bit of more stuff, don't give the poors anything, they're not responsible with their money"
you're labouring under the just world fallacy
science disagrees, buddy
You could see it that way, but those are your words you're putting in my mouth, not mine. The point is that most people (not just "the poors" as you choose to call them) aren't used to thinking like wealthy people. When most of us, including myself, see a number like $471,465 we think of things we would buy. Maybe move into a nicer place, for example. Why do you think OP is saying we should be promoting redistribution this way?
I've quoted multiple studies like the one you linked that demonstrate that most people who get Basic Income don't even quit their jobs. In one case the only ones who did were single moms with young children at home, and teenagers who went back to school because they had dropped out to work to help support their families. But I would be shocked if those people didn't buy more stuff with their newfound income, because that's what people do. The wealthy do that too, they just also think in terms of acquiring assets that produce more money. There are definitely people with that mindset (not even necessarily previously wealthy ones) who would focus on asset acquisition, and after a while they would end up accumulating most of the assets.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying that's the rhetoric used by people usually saying things of that nature.
I'm not saying you think that.
(not just "the poors" as you choose to call them)
In the bit where I'm writing in a sarcastic tone about people who are prejudiced toward the financially less well off?
Maybe don't get so upset at people discussing things you bring up. Not everything is a fucking personal attack bro. Go alone a bowl and eat something. Have you been getting enough sun? Low vitamin D can cause irritation and moodiness.
"I would be shocked if they don't buy new stuff because that's what people do."
Your implication being? That the money is wasted on.... "stuff"? What if that "stuff" is clothes, bikes, tools, a car, a washing machine, etc etc? I know for a fact that there's purchase I've put off for literally years. Purchases which maybe have enabled me to do a lot more than I have. They're would've systematically build my life up. A new vacuum cleaner for one. That would help me clean which would help not only psychologically, but with my breathing problems.
And if someone doesn't need those and can invest in a home...?
What are you against here, exactly? What is you implication with "just buy stuff", because it sounds an awful lot like the people who complain about social programs because they don't think poor people deserve money because "they're poor because they haven't worked hard enough, so they're lazy and wasteful and thus giving them money is a waste".
I'm not saying you're saying that. I'm saying that "they just buy stuff" sounds a lot like it.
view more: next ›