• paddirn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just sharpening this pitchfork here, wondering when we’re gonna start eating the rich…

      • Mac
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Be the change you want to see in the world or whatever

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sharpening a pitchfork? Man I’m to poor for that and have just been sharpening my teeth through my anxiety grinding.

        People really do forget we are just animals with pretty good control.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Rich people would be regulated and taxed… if not for the protection of conservatives.

    If you aren’t fighting conservatism, you aren’t fighting climate change.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those that benefit from corruption are unlikely to pass laws that inhibit their own ability to benefit from corruption.

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Replace conservatives with “government corruption” and regulatory capture and you’d be more accurate.

      It takes more than just bunch of geriatric politicians to corrupt the entire state and federal governments so completely.

      Amazon, Nestle, (any weapons manufacturers), etc. those are the ones in control.

      And they DO pay “taxes”. Trillions of dollars in tax. They’re just not paying taxes to the governments in the way we want/think.

      Amazon execs are probably constantly looking for ways to reduce the amount they need to spend to control governments.

      Think about who benefits most from a non functional government and regulations

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lol. No. Back at you

        For non-clickers.

        He posted a tinfoil youtube video about how Billionaires supposedly prefer Democrats

        I posted proof he was full of shit, to the tune of 75% of Billionaires donating Republican and (despite the single biggest donor being George Soros to Democrats) 75% of billionaire donations going to Republicans.

        Real fact is, 6 top billionaires favor Democrats. The other 14 favor Republicans.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol. No. Back at you

          Maybe you shouldn’t argue with yourself. It’s a really bad look.

          For non-clickers.

          For all the people who aren’t as easily bullshitted as this user obviously hopes… 1Dime never claimed that billionaires exclusively support Democrats (as the user I’m responding to pretends) - 1Dime very clearly states that billionaires prefer Democrats, and then makes a pretty iron-tight argument as to why they will happily support far-right politics if bog-standard right-wing politics (ie, Democrats) fails to protect their power and privilege to a sufficient degree.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it’s worth noting that being counted among the “rich people” (defined by the article as the world’s top 10% by income or wealth) starts at a number a lot lower than most Americans (or Westerners in general) might realize: $122,100/year measured by income, or $771,300 measured by net worth. (Source: World Inequality Report 2022, page 9.) In fact, even that second figure might be (vastly) overstated, because another paper I found claims that it only takes $138,346 net worth to be in the top 10%, and $1,146,685 gets you into the top 1%! (Source: Credit Suisse Research Institute Global Wealth Report 2022, page 22.)

    In other words, a Hell of a lot of those global rich people are Americans who are deluding themselves to think they’re middle-class and not part of the problem. We’re not talking about just Musk and Bezos and shit; we’re talking about you and me. Literally, in fact: at least according to the Credit Suisse definition, I myself am one of the rich people @z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml wants to eat!

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard. For example, nobody I know would be part of the 10% here by that income, and I live in Norway.

      And really, you really don’t need more than that to live a good and luxurious life. In fact I think you don’t even need to be anywhere close to that, even. Especially if you implement some actual rent controls, lower incomes are plenty fine.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard. For example, nobody I know would be part of the 10% here by that income, and I live in Norway.

        Sorry, I guess I subconsciously decided to err high when discussing somebody else’s wealth/success out of politeness, but I now realize this context is the exception!

        As an American, I don’t think I’m underestimating how many Americans are rich by this standard, however. Heck, even most of us who don’t meet it still live the same kind of suburban, car-centric lifestyle as if we did. The people around you might not be the problem, but the people around me sure as fuck are!

        And really, you really don’t need more than that to live a good and luxurious life. In fact I think you don’t even need to be anywhere close to that, even. Especially if you implement some actual rent controls, lower incomes are plenty fine.

        100% agreed. I don’t want to absolve myself of my culpability as part of the problem (or undermine my thesis that most Americans don’t realize how much of a part of the problem they are, for that matter), but I have to admit that I try to live an abnormally frugal (and therefore possibly lower-carbon) lifestyle, and I’m very satisfied with it. I own a single-family house, but it’s a relatively-small one in a streetcar suburb. I own too many cars (mostly old project cars), but I put very few miles on them because my wife and I both bicycle for almost all commuting and errands. My family lives comfortably on spending that’s not too far above the federal poverty level, which means we do a lot of cooking instead of eating out and get a lot of our durable goods used instead of new. (Side note: it’s crazy what some of the folks around here throw out: I’ve got a giant, 8’ tall, solid-wood, built-in hutch in my dining room that I found on the side of the road! Luckily, I own a utility trailer – which was also given to me for free – or I’d have never gotten it home.) Finally, although my income is typically quite a bit higher – we aim for a very high savings rate – it’s never been so high as to come anywhere near the “global 10% income” I cited earlier.

        Anyway, point is: although I’m desperately trying not to be so naive as to think I’m the exception to my own claim about who’s part of the problem, I do think I have a perspective that gives me a better understanding than most about what lifestyle changes are needed to solve it and how they’re not as hard as people think.

        • millie@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Have you not seen like, housing projects? High rises? Run down old apartments? Everybody who doesn’t have the kind of money you do doesn’t live like they do anyway. Like, in terms of transportation, I spend my whole work day driving people around who don’t really have the money to spend on a cab but have the money to spend on a car even less.

          That doesn’t mean they manage to pretend they’re rich anyway, it means they make sacrifices you’ve probably never once in your life had to think about.

          When they do splurge to make themselves briefly comfortable, it’s at the cost of more sacrifices that you don’t have to deal with anymore if you ever did. And then they get to deal with people rolling their eyes about how financially irresponsible they are.

          Meanwhile the same people who make six figures are literally relying on people who make minimum wage in order to make their own lives convenient. And yet somehow that’s supposed to end up with everyone magically living like you?

          You live in a fantasy world. Not everybody has the time or the money to prioritize spending several hours cooking. Not everybody is left with enough energy by the end of their minimum wage no benefit grind of a day that you expect them to tolerate in order to sustain your hunger for little conveniences like places to go buy fresh food to cook for your family.

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard.

        Still, many might be surprised at how many people they know or encounter who are rich by this standard. In a globally wealthy country, in the areas generally wealthy, you’re going to find “rich” people all over the place.

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, maybe, I guess it isn’t really surprising to me. I certainly do think many in the upper middle class are consuming far beyond what is reasonable, from cars, to massive homes, to vacation homes, to just the sheer amount of stuff they buy and throw out. It’s unnecessary, and not needed for a good and still luxurious life.

      • fiat_lux@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This graph seems to suggest the average income for Norwegians is around US$110k. That’s pretty close to the global top 10% threshold of US$122k.

        I’m unsure if that data is accurate, but if it is, I’m assuming you don’t live in a capital/major city where things tend to cost more and hence average jobs get paid slightly more? The contrast between city and rural salaries / cost of living is pretty stark where I am.

          • fiat_lux@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah this uses average and a different type of calculation called the United Nations System of National Accounts (SNA 2008). They’re also the data the study in the article uses for its basis. From the graph info:

            Average National income within the p0p100 percentile group. National income aims to measure the total income available to the residents of a given country. It is equal to the gross domestic product (the total value of goods and services produced on the territory of a given country during a given year), minus fixed capital used in production processes (e.g. replacement of obsolete machines or maintenance of roads) plus the net foreign income earned by residents in the rest of the world.
            National income has many limitations. However it is the only income concept that has an internationally agreed definition (established by the United Nations System of National Accounts, see SNA 2008). So we use it as our reference concept (with tax havens correction). To be improved.The national economy - in the national accounts sense - includes all domestic sectors, i.e. all entities that are resident of a given country (in the sense of their economic activity), whether they belong to the private sector, the corporate sector, the governement sector. The population is comprised of individuals over age 20. The base unit is the individual (rather than the household). This is equivalent to assuming no sharing of resources within couples.

            [National income]=[Net domestic product]+[Net foreign income]

            WID.world estimations as a proportion of GDP based on the following; 1950–2021: estimated from other components. These estimates are then anchored to GDP (see GDP variable for details). The estimates of national accounts subcomponents in the WID are based on official country data and use the methodology presented in the DINA guidelines. We stress that these subcomponents estimates are more fragile than those of main aggregates such as national income. Countries may use classifications used are not always fully consistent with other countries or over time. Series breaks with no real economic significance can appear as a result. The WID include these estimates to provide a centralized source for this official data, so that it can be exploited more directly. We encourage users of this data to be careful and to pay attention to the source of the data, which we systematically indicate.

            No idea how much that affects things, but it’s the official government numbers basically standardised across countries to try to factor in access to infrastructure, etc. Definitely not perfect because it still has tp be an estimate, but still at least based on the same official source.

            Unless they genuinely fucked up, which is still possible.

            But basically, most everyone you know is likely in the global top 15%-20% even if none of you look individually rich, because you all have access to a high standard of living.

      • fiat_lux@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        For the US median income is $46,625/year. So more then half of Americans are not part of the richest 10%

        While true, $46,625 is still the top 32%. Which suggests that the average American will still have to make some lifestyle cuts. Even though they’re already exploited hard by their ruling class.

        $30k, the entry level salary for US restaurant workers, is the 50% mark. So basically, every full-time working US adult is in the top 50% richest globally by income. Their exorbitant medical and student debts make that not feel anything like how being rich is portrayed, even if they are technically richer when measured by income alone.

        You know things are fucked when most of the richest people in the world are struggling to put a roof over their head and pay for essentials.

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s worth noting that Americans also must spend that income in a similarly-inflated market, so it doesn’t much matter what their salary would be worth in, say, Uganda. I think any such comparison of global wealth runs into these sorts of issues.

          Someone earning in the global top 10% may not be able to afford a house locally. Someone earning in the top 30% may not be able to afford rent and food at the same time in their locale. It makes the percentile meaningless.

          • fiat_lux@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yep, this is after all adjustments using the United Nations SNA 2008. It’s not perfect, but it’s the closest we have for accounting for those differences.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There were two possible definitions to go by: income or net worth. Look how low the net worth figure is (especially the one from the Credit Suisse study).

        Keep in mind that even a $1M net worth – more than either the Credit Suisse or World Inequality Report measure – is considered on the low side in terms of retirement savings by age 65. (At a 4% safe withdrawal rate, it only gets you $40k/year to live on.)

        • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Page 25 has a breakdown of median wealth. For the US it is $93,271, however for Western Europe it is higher then that to be fair.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A $122,100/year

        The person you’re reacting to mentions net worth. Owning a total of 138k is like a quarter of a house here

        • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A lot of people have debt on their home, if they own it. There are also a lot of Americans among the people with the lowest net worth in the world. That is mainly student debt and they do not live bad lifes, but the thing is that median net worth of adults in the US is still $93,271 according to the same study. So litterally half of Americans are not part of the global 10% in terms of net worth either.

          • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            litterally half of Americans are not part of the global 10% in terms of net worth either.

            You do realize that saying “Somewhat over half aren’t”, means that a very large number of people ARE, right?

    • millie@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Kinda sounds like you’re rich. I’m definitely not.

      Wanna help? I can probably make an amount of money that you barely sneeze at go absurdly far.

    • OminousOrange@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You mean my two massive SUVs I drive everywhere, energy inefficient McMansion, and 50,000 toys I buy my children is causing climate change!? But China!!

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Soy you could be solid middle class and be really good at saving, or a lower middle class that has saved for retirement and a paid off home and easily fall into the “net worth” category of “rich.”

    • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t believe I stuttered… Please slather yourself in a fine wine reduction and wait for me by a nice bottle of Chianti.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’re on >$100k you’re middle class.

      Just because you’ve spunked it all away on a giant mortgage and payments on a $70k car, you can always just downsize that away, move to a dump and live like a king.

      King of the dump, but still a king.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a poor person living on disability in America, I absolutely agree. If you’re making $100k, you’re fucking rich, and if you’re making half that I’m still gonna be keeping and eye on you.

      • ChouxFleur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d bloody love to be earning half that 😂 at least I know now that I’m not in the 1%.

        Bring out the guillotine I guess!

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, the study theyre citing is pretty flawed. It starts with an assumption that emissions strictly correlate with income, it doesnt actually break down or analyze emissions sources. It just takes the total emissions of a country and divides that up by income. Its economic analysis. But that’s not how emissions work. A million dollar car isnt gonna emit 100 times more than a 10k car. The cows for their wagyu steaks arent producing more methane than cows ending up at Mcdonalds.

    The wealthy absolutely emit more through flights and boats. Someone with a private jet is likely emitting hundreds of times more emissions than a regular person. But theres not that many private jets. Ban all private jets, but it wont even register on global emissions totals.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a ton of academic research showing the correlation between income and emissions.

      There are also a ton of actions which are necessary to get to zero emissions but not sufficient. Banning private jets is one.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Banning private jets is so far down the long-tail of emissions-lowering strategies that it’s barely even worth considering. Heck, it might even be bad to consider it because doing so might serve to distract from the things we actually need to do.

        The problem isn’t just billionaire-level income correlated with billionaire-level emissions; the problem is American middle-class-level income correlated with American middle-class-level emissions, too! We – typical, normal Americans – are the global rich people the article’s talking about. The “big barrier to stabilizing the climate” isn’t the robber-baron who doesn’t want to give up his private jet; it’s the suburban soccer mom who doesn’t want to trade her minivan crossover SUV for a cargo bike.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s both, and having billionaires cut their incredibly high emissions makes it politically possible to get the rest of the population on board

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah, but that assumes you can succeed in forcing the billionaires to cut their incredibly high emissions. I’m not sure we can afford the time spent picking that fight.

        • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t want to is not the same as doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style. You’ve been pretty active in the comments saying that it really isn’t the 1% (or the companies owned by said %). Everyone can do better, in every conceivable facet of life, but it doesn’t seem productive to me to belittle a family trying to live the life they’ve been taught to lead.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If your attitude is that explaining that change is necessary is “belittling,” you’re a perfect example of the “big barrier” the article is talking about. In particular…

            doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style

            …what have you, personally, been doing to change that? I, for one, am active in my local community organizations trying to get bike infrastructure built, parking minimums reduced, and single-family zones changed to allow higher density.

            We don’t have the luxury of sitting around being offended when called out on our inaction anymore.

            • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay. I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard, and feel free to do what you can as I will. But I’m not, and I need to make enough money to pay rent and eat.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay.

                I didn’t say they should! What I said is that we’ve got way more important things to worry about, and getting hung up on minutiae like that could be counterproductive.

                I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard

                You think that’s bragging?! You’ve missed the point so hard I’m not even sure how to respond to that.

                My income isn’t high and never has been (my household has rarely even hit the US median). My wealth is only relatively high for my age because I’m extremely frugal. And that’s also not a brag – that’s just me giving the context to explain that when I say even I’m part of the problem, I mean damn near EVERY-FUCKING-BODY in America is part of the problem! I don’t care how poor you think you are; on a global scale you’re dead wrong.

                • mriormro@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The focus should be on industry, fabrication, production, and energy generation. That’s the largest impact you can have.

                  Regulating people’s lives, especially people who already feel pressed upon given their contextual poverty/inequality is not how anything is going to happen. In fact, you’ll probably be exactly where we are now: mostly no one giving a shit or doing anything about it.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the study’s methodology is fine. Although you’re correct to point out that the million-dollar car doesn’t pollute much more than the $10K car and the wagyu cow doesn’t fart more than the McDonald’s-destined cow, what you don’t realize is that it really is even the $10K car and the McDonalds cow that are the problem! We’re not just talking about billionaires here; we’re talking about the global 10%, which starts at surprisingly low income or net worth and includes most “middle-class” Americans!

      You are part of the problem. I am part of the problem. It’s not just Bezos and shit who need to change; it’s us.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mostly it is bigger houses, driving bigger cars, flying more to vacations and well buying more in general. We are talking about thte top 10% globally here. They are not crazy billionaires and most do not own private jets or boats.

    • Reality Suit@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here’s the beautiful part, there can still be “rich” people. We just need to tighten the gap. Being rich should mean you can buy what you want right now and not have to save. Being poor should be that you have to save an extra paycheck to get what you want after food shelter and other luxuries are paid for. That’s it. Close the gap. How? By eating the rich. Boom!

  • Auzy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I used to be a tradie. They absolutely are…

    Many of them are doing stupid things like building massive concrete homes only 4 people live in, own MANY cars, and we even came across genuinely stupid nonsense like massive firepits in the middle of swimming pools (which aren’t there for warmth, and literally just burn petrol to look impressive).

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    And that’s why this planet is fucking done. Or at least, humanities time on it is soon at hand.

    We deserve to be annihilated, earth deserves better

    • Damaskox@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well, not every person out there do questionable actions (just) to get rich.
      I am also happy that we are getting more and more environment-helping services.

      .

      I as well as some other “insignificant” individuals still try to carry some light into the darkness, but it may be futile when compared to all the wrong-doings some people create…but I won’t give up, nevertheless. I’ll carry on, trying.

      • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Remember this: Try.”

        If only those little single celled organisms had just given up because it was too hard we could have avoided this whole existence thing. Real selfish bastards if we’re being real