this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
449 points (75.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43822 readers
1011 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm no economist, but is that 70% of wealth money or net worth? If you own a company but live at an average standard, that company is still part of your net worth, even though it's not being wasted on luxury.
Jeff Bezos, for example, has a net worth of $158 billion. He owns about 10% of Amazon, which comes out to $133 billion. That means 84% of his wealth is just Amazon itself. The remaining $25 billion is still huge, of course. I'm not denying that. But if every other billionaire is in a similar layout (which I suspect they are,) then having them live at an average standard is not going to cut our work down to 30%.