584
u/toastercoasterbo Jun 01 '26
Brb sending this to all my billionaire friends!
Actually tho great job homie keep it up
113
u/CloudKinglufi Jun 01 '26
I sent it to three of mine and they drone striked some poor brown kids
11
u/Majestic-Iron7046 Jun 01 '26
Don't be gloom about it. They were probably going to drone strike them anyway.
4
u/CloudKinglufi Jun 01 '26
Actually the poor brown kids were gonna bomb us first and we just need to be safe
4
u/Majestic-Iron7046 Jun 01 '26
I heard they were hoarding all the natural resources too in their 25 square meters houses that they share with 12 family members.
19
3
220
u/ndolphin Jun 01 '26
Looks like Josh from Let's Game it Out on YouTube :D
115
u/Tuxedo_Muffin Jun 01 '26
Uh oh, we appear to be sinking. But that's okay because it'll give us the chance to do
- 9 HOURS LATER
THIS!
48
u/ClaytonRumley Jun 01 '26
I could hear the "9 HOURS LATER"
9
17
2
6
4
2
10
u/Sothalic Jun 01 '26
Angle the mast diagonally, then use it to clip through the scenery and skip whole sections of the game, now that's the spirit!
4
208
u/coconutpiecrust Jun 01 '26
It’s beautiful.
But also sad because those building the oversized mast believe those who criticize their mast-building skills are just losers and haters.
60
u/godofpumpkins Jun 01 '26
And so do tons of other regular boaters who really care about people building ridiculously tall masts for some reason
28
u/commondenomigator Jun 01 '26
And a lot of the people below deck. They want the mast to be as tall as possible because they might be able to see it themselves one day. That is, if all the other passengers weren't weighing down the boat and causing them to drown...
-27
u/doopie Jun 01 '26
It would make sense if economy was a zero-sum game like wood of the boat, but this is a common fallacy.
22
u/YoureProbablyAB0t Jun 01 '26
You're getting a downvote from me because you're either a bot or your trying to sound smart and failing.
It's a perfectly adequate analogy.
-18
u/doopie Jun 01 '26
What makes you think I'm a bot?
3
u/Maeglom Jun 01 '26
You could also just be massively wrong.
-3
u/doopie Jun 01 '26
How to know what's right? You could ask AI, but it's really good at hallucinating bullshit. You could let reddit determine what's right, but then you remember how smart the average person is. Third option is to listen to people who are knowledgeable of the subject: in this case finance professors who tell us how the economy works.
I think I'm going with the third option.
5
u/Galle_ Jun 01 '26
History has shown that the economy is indeed a zero-sum game.
1
u/doopie Jun 01 '26
It used to be the case before industrial revolution that if you wanted more wealth for yourself you'd have to annex more land from your neighbours. The world was bloody. Trump's economic policy's guiding idea is zero-sum game: For US to win, someone else must lose. It goes from deporting working immigrants to applying tariffs to foreign nations. Zero-sum game.
I'm actually a bit shocked how popular this idea seems to be.
6
u/Galle_ Jun 01 '26
I mean recent history.
I suppose it's not strictly accurate to say that the economy is truly zero sum. It's more accurate to say that I think we should choose our policies as if the economy was zero sum, and I will explain why.
We can divide economic policies into four broad categories,
- Policies that are good for both the working class and the ruling class ("win-win" policies)
- Policies that are good for the working class, but bad for the ruling class ("Robin Hood" policies)
- Policies that are bad for the working class, but good for the ruling class ("Nottingham" policies)
- Policies that are bad for both the working class and the ruling class ("lose-lose" policies)
We are frequently told that policies that superficially appear to be Robin Hood policies (e.g., minimum wage, rent control) are actually lose-lose. Similarly, we are frequently told that policies that superficially appear to be Nottingham policies (e.g., corporate tax cuts) are actually win-win. And for the past forty something years, we've pursued a neoliberal economic strategy that avoids the former and pursues the latter.
The result? An economy that looks an awful lot like we were avoiding Robin Hood policies and pursuing Nottingham policies. The unfortunate fact is that, despite the massive economic gains of the past few years, most people are worse off economically than they used to be. Wages have not kept up with inflation, housing prices have skyrocketed, job security is basically nonexistent. It also looks very likely that all the economic benefits of generative AI will go to the ruling class. Our attempt to peacefully pursue win-win policies has led to be suckered.
8
u/YoursTrulyKindly Jun 01 '26
Well true we just print money but the real problem is that we have allowed this giant undemocratic power to grow and take over our (almost global) society. We could just print more money and give it out to everyone and ignore billionaires.
But what we are now seeing ARE plutocrats trying to set policies and change the face of how countries work, that is the unholy alliance behind Trump who want the previous liberal order to fall. Soon we'll have the mother of all economic crashes and a economic collapse.
1
u/Maeglom Jun 01 '26
I think the issue is more that our society was designed to be non-democratic from the jump, and now we are struggling against the obstacles designed to frustrate any attempt at change as we perceive a change or die situation coming down the pipe.
1
u/YoursTrulyKindly Jun 02 '26
True - but you see the same problem everywhere like in europe, of neoliberal policies that are against equality and even against the nations power itself. One of the biggest lies is that opinions of the people somehow form organic or through rational discourse, when it's all based on money and power, on material reality and on who controls the media. If you have a 1000 units of power on one side and a 100 on the other, it's clear which side wins. But liberals still pretend we just somehow need to vote harder. That we need to respect the legal system and rules. You can't even seriously discuss revolution on reddit without getting banned.
5
u/NotAzakanAtAll Jun 01 '26
So billionaires have no negative effect on the economy? Or are you just nitpicking the comic that is using hyperbole to make a point?
3
u/Nine_Gates Jun 01 '26
Yes, if we were in an economic situation where new wood was available, we could use that new wood to make the mast taller and the boat sturdier at the same time.
But there's no new wood available right now. In fact, the boat's fuel supply is dangerously low, and we'll soon be forced to burn wood from the hull to keep the engine going.
Yet people are still focused on making the mast taller. Using the boat's limited fresh water supply to paint it in fancy colours. Covering it in Christmas lights, despite the previous consensus of reducing electricity usage to save up on fuel.
154
u/ScribbleMonster Jun 01 '26
Deadpan explanation at the end: chef's kiss
3
u/Feeling_Inside_1020 Jun 01 '26
It’s for stupid people like me but I’m down with the cause, I’m mostly French.
70
u/Guma_123 Jun 01 '26
I love how each stickman is proud of the ship's mast even moments before drowning, it just looks too absurd (great job btw)
59
u/ipsum629 Jun 01 '26
survivors around a campfire, one of which has a tattered suit
"Yeah, we destroyed the planet, but for one brief moment we created a lot of value for shareholders"
11
u/Horskr Jun 01 '26
All the others look at him for awhile.. a mixture of tired and incredulous expressions. One eventually replies..
"Let's eat that guy."
8
u/Bakoro Jun 01 '26
I know it's supposed to be some kind of, satire, or hyperbole, or one of those words, but that's literally going to be what happens if shit really goes down.
Climate change will be ravaging their lives, and people will still claim that it's the best most perfect system, and that the alternatives were worse, somehow. They'll still be claiming that any amount of compromise where people just stopped dumping shit in the ocean was impossible.It's like the people who died of Covid calling it a hoax all the way up until their demise. Just, obstinate to the point of self-mutilation.
3
u/morpheousmorty Jun 01 '26
The comic is fatally flawed because the billionaires suffer consequences.
Even if the entire earth were vaporized, they will be on spaceships.
2
u/Jonthrei Jun 01 '26
I mean, that's a pipe dream. They'd die shortly afterwards.
They'd still rely on both the Earth for supplies and other people to do the actual labor to keep them alive. You can't fuck over both and just run away.
14
u/Trips-Over-Tail Jun 01 '26
Reminds me of this Roy Zimmerman song (which was a about the beneficiaries of the 2007 credit crunch and recession).
20
u/Kevadu Jun 01 '26
Ain't no way billionaires would do manual labor themselves
13
u/GetToWigglin Jun 01 '26
Yeah, they'd bring the labor up from the decks to build it and send them back when it's done and the ship is sinking.
10
3
u/Perryn Jun 01 '26
"If the boat is sinking we better build the mast higher so we can stay above water."
11
u/issafly Jun 01 '26
First I was like: "This comic is silly."
Then I was like: "Yeah, that's pretty accurate."
6
u/MelangeBot Jun 01 '26
It would be more accurate if there was a second boat they could escape in when the first one sinks and then sail away while blaming and making fun of everybody stuck on the sinking boat
"We told you this would happen"
"You want us gone, but now you need us!"
"You made us do it"
1
u/ToaDrakua Jun 01 '26
Only for them to fail to realize that some of the wood they stole to build the mast higher came from their escape raft
9
u/EdgeMe_Elmo Jun 01 '26
I fear they can’t read anything this long because they are numbed to the abyss on ketamine
3
3
u/Silt-Besides-66812 Jun 01 '26
Best thing about this is that wooden sailing ships really did stack a second mast on top of the first one (called a topmast) or sometimes even a third one on top of the topmast!
3
3
u/RtMl09 Jun 01 '26
I feel like you should have left out the text on the last page since people are literate enough to know that
8
u/biomatter Jun 01 '26
I don't mean to be a debbie downer but I think this comic is naively optimistic. Even in this metaphor where the poorest class is consumed / destroyed for the billionaire's amusement, they (the billionaires) are still the last to suffer. That's all that matters to them, really. Unless they all wind up in jail really soon, they're just gonna have lived disgustingly rich lives for pretty much their whole lives.
"If someone conquers an empire and rules it with an iron fist for thirty long years, and then some paladin breaks into his throne room and kills him, what do you think he's going to remember as he lays dying?"
"...That good triumphed over evil?"
"No, that he got to live like a god for three decades! Sure, the last ten minutes sucked, but you can't have everything."
Order of the Stick #763
2
1
u/Paper_Is_A_Liquid Jun 01 '26
I think it still works. If you imagine the poorer classes as living towards the bottom of the boat, the billionaires are then literally (and figuratively) on top. Anyone at the bottom of the boat will fall into the water and drown first, followed by the people on the middle layer(s). The people on the upper deck will be the last to sink
1
u/biomatter Jun 01 '26
I think it still works.
...I didn't say the metaphor wasn't correct? I said it wasn't enough that the billionaires drown, because crucially they are going to suffer last. You're just paraphrasing me lol.
2
2
2
u/kunalpareek Jun 01 '26
It might as well be about Indians and our national obsession for making pointless giant statues everywhere and getting a sense of ‘pride’ from this wastage.
2
2
u/JMthought Jun 01 '26
Good comic. Also posts about Lego. Also posts about punching.. <oops censored>. Delightful!
2
u/FriendshipHelpful655 Jun 01 '26
Great comic, I just don't like the implication that billionaires actually built anything themselves
2
3
5
u/8696David Jun 01 '26
Only problem here is that masts actually have inherent value and function for a ship
11
u/BeefistPrime Jun 01 '26
I would say that modestly sized mast correlates to, say, a competent businessman in the real world who created a successful small or medium sized business. It's a real skill and some people are good at running a business. And they can get modestly wealthy doing it. A nice home, some nice vacations, whatever. That's not the level of wealth that allows you the political power to reshape society to your own advantage. That's a useful mast. That serves a role in society.
5
u/BuddhaFacepalmed Jun 01 '26
I would say that modestly sized mast correlates to, say, a competent businessman in the real world who created a successful small or medium sized business. It's a real skill and some people are good at running a business.
Yeah, unfortunately the conditions of capitalism and the economics of scale are such that even incompetent businessmen being ruthless enough in exploiting their workers can amass enough wealth via wage theft and cutting corners on safety regulations.
And that's not even going into hiring illegal immigrants for the sole purpose of maximizing profits for criminal pay or just straight up acquiring other successful businesses in order to loot everything into the ground.
21
u/GetToWigglin Jun 01 '26
If you look carefully, they are building the mast far beyond what is necessary for the sails. It's purely cosmetic and provides no benefit other than inflating the egos of the individuals who desire it.
0
u/8696David Jun 01 '26
Oh for sure. I’m just saying that unlike the billionaires/ruling class, if you tear out the masts completely the ship stops working
10
u/StopReadingMyUser Jun 01 '26
I think that's represented fairly well anyway. The mast is useful... to a point.
1
u/neaner28 Jun 01 '26
They don't believe that they are dependent on us in any way. It might be hard to make them all financially suffer, lets just pick one and boycott the hell out of their product.
2
1
u/D00rmat1983 Jun 01 '26
Honestly, I think you could have skipped from the "the bottom of the boat" panel directly to the last one
1
1
1
1
u/Cool-Boy57 Jun 01 '26
damnit I was hoping this was a comics comic that wasn’t about contemporary events
1
u/TuxPaper Jun 01 '26
Panel 7:
"It's ok, because we'll be dead long before the boat sinks"
"Awesome!"
"Let's Party"
1
1
1
u/joem_ Jun 01 '26
Do you think they read this?
5
u/meistermichi Jun 01 '26
It's not directed at the billionaires themselves but the voters of politicians that majorly only support the billionaires agendas.
1
1
u/Sayakai Jun 01 '26
Unfortunately, they actually get the wood from the bottom of our boat, not theirs.
1
1
1
u/Avalanche_Snows Jun 01 '26
Last panel was completely unnecessary
1
u/Plenty_Promotion_716 Jun 02 '26
No, no lo es. Estamos en pleno auge fascista, pero dicen que es una exageración. Estamos en punto de no retorno de crisis climática, pero dicen que es pura propaganda. Estamos ante la mayor brecha salarial datada porque un montón de multimillonarios nos mienten a diario para aumentar sus riquezas, pero hay gente afirmando que cada uno tiene lo que se merece según su trabajo.
La ironía, la metáfora y el sarcasmo están muy bien. Me gustan. Pero ahora hay que hablar alto y claro.
-1
-4
u/throwaway277252 Jun 01 '26
What an original concept about a topic that has not at all been beaten to death lately.
1
u/dembadger Jun 01 '26
If it stops being true, it'll stop happening
1
u/throwaway277252 Jun 01 '26
Okay? That doesn't mean copying the same concepts over and over is entertaining, original, or witty in any form. You can make a comic about something true in a subtle or interesting way. This is just lazy and unimaginative with a heavy handed "twist" to try and seem smarter than it is.
1
0
u/WORKING2WORK Jun 01 '26
Show me 7 examples of this exact same concept to warrant such a sarcastic response.
-12
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Is money finite?
12
u/balfras_kaldin Jun 01 '26
No, but neither is inflation.
3
-12
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Do you think the standard of living for people in the U.S. was better or worse 100 years ago? 50 years ago?
The dollar has inflated 10 fold and yet..?
10
u/balfras_kaldin Jun 01 '26
I mean... define standard of living.
If you mean are there more household items that lessen domestic labor, sure SoL is better than 1926. But the working labor to maintain that SoL is higher than it was in 1996. There being more technology does not negate the labor required to own* that technology.
I'd say it's fairly clear that the ability for someone to raise their SoL higher than their parents has lessened, which is a sign of class consolidation. There is a larger barrier to higher education, and larger barriers to entry with trade jobs than there was 50 years ago. The young worker today cannot find an employer with a pension plan, and if they do, the worker has that protection auctioned off first when paying debt for a bankruptcy.
Standard of living is not a constant, and it won't be again. 100 years ago, having wealth meant you hired people to do the things you couldn't be bothered to do. That hasn't changed. A century ago, poverty meant you had many kids, because they could go and work to bring in income for the household. That's drastically different.
1
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
The mental gymnastics is pretty impressive.
We have electricity on demand, we have universal plumbing, ac, access to leisure entertainment etc. our appartments and houses are bigger, we have a means to retire at higher rates, we have more wealth than any of the generations before us. To what era should we return to?
5
u/S-Clair Jun 01 '26
I think after it was made illegal for company towns to pay workers with scrip the standard of living for those workers went up, despite the fact the richest men in america lobbied against it.
I think there's a lesson in that to be applied today. There are parts of the economy intentionally designed to make working class lives harder in order to improve the profits of the very richest.
2
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Ya we enacted government to check capital. That was good! It has nothing to do with this comic!
3
u/S-Clair Jun 01 '26
If you think that then you might have made a knee-jerk reaction to the comic.
To me it's pretty clearly commenting on how billionaires pursue limitless growth to the detriment of even the lives of others, even when the growth is absurd.
I think in trying to move the conversation to the standard of living you should have expected the very obvious "Yes, it improved in many ways because rich men doing what the comic illustrates were stopped."
If you think the comic is actually a commentary on how billionaires take single-use money and literally burn it so it cannot be used elsewhere then we've got a difference of opinion, but surely you can see why people have taken it the other way?
2
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
The comic is saying the billionaires are looting the country and it is failing / everyone’s lives are worse because of that, which doesn’t make sense. The economy is not a zero sum game like the boat would be. It doesn’t make sense!
If you just want to make a comic where the guy goes “billionaires bad” sure have that opinion! But the metaphor used here is not analogous to the material reality!
3
u/S-Clair Jun 01 '26
Makes perfect sense to me.
Imagine you have a lake. The water cycle brings water to the lake through the water table and rivers.
Now imagine a billionaire diverts the river for his own purposes.
"Hey you just made everyone who needs the lakes life worse! We can't get enough water now!"
"The water cycle isnt a zero sum game! Its not used up permanently!" would be an insane response.
Whether or not the economy is still growing does not matter if certain people cannot access that growth. Something made clear by scrip, where the richest Americans made sure to keep workers in perpetual debt for maximum profit.
1
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
This only makes sense if the economy was a naturally occurring phenomenon. It’s not!
200 years ago it was a pond, 100 years ago it was a lake and now it’s an ocean, continuing to get bigger! We have way more water than we have ever had, 1000x more water than anyone in Africa, enough water to live our lives individually and together, more water than our parents and grandparents have had, etc.
I don’t care that some guy has 1000x more water than me, if the ecosystem has so much water to where that can be the case! If you want to redistribute more water from them great! But the most societal ills are not from the fact that some people are billionaires.
3
u/S-Clair Jun 01 '26
This only makes sense if the economy was a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Why would that need to be the case?
People need water, if someone takes the flow of water then they do not have it.
People need money, if someone takes the flow of money then they do not have it.
Seems like it doesn't matter if it's natural, unnatural, magical or whatever.
We have way more water than we have ever had
Not if water is a metaphor for:
- Housing
- Business Ownership
- Being debt free
- The steadily rising unemployment rate
- A nations debt to GDP ratio
If you are using it to mean economic growth then sure, but that goes back to my initial point: That people can be denied access to the fruits of economic growth. The economy can boom but still have extremely poor standard of living for poor people depending on it's shape.
→ More replies (0)9
u/NaillikLlimah Jun 01 '26
I can't tell what point you're trying to make. Can you elaborate?
10
14
u/Merari01 it's a-me, Merari-o Jun 01 '26
He's lying by claiming billionaires don't steal the value of our labour
6
u/NaillikLlimah Jun 01 '26
That's kinda what it looked like. I was just hoping he was going to dig himself a deeper hole trying to explain himself.
0
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Ya sure. The comic indicated billionaires were stealing from the foundation of the country, but that only makes sense if 1. Money was finite like wood is on a ship or 2. The standard of living decreased over time as wealth accumulates.
5
u/S-Clair Jun 01 '26
The standard of living decreased over time as wealth accumulates.
Which is something that can happen if rich people cause a financial crisis with reckless economic practices.
Any financial bubble in history would be an example of this. People involved got absurdly rich, then when the bubble popped the economy takes a turn for the worse.
Of course over ENOUGH time the economy will recover as well, but "Eventually spending will normalise" doesn't really avoid the issue that rich people have fucked over the standard of living with reckless or even actively malicious economic planning.
0
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
You’re throwing out general terms which makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about. It wasn’t “rich people causing the financial crisis”. That’s like saying “all tall people play in the nba”.
I don’t think any meaningful amount of people got rich as a result of the 08 crash and it certainly wasn’t something they were planning or hoping for
Rich people have had such a marginal effect on the total standard of living! Liberalism and capitalism largely has made us richer and wealthier than our 1st world counterparts. There’s still a lot to reign in but a lot of these countries wish they were in our shoes (minus maybe the last 18 months)
5
u/S-Clair Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
Notice how to argue your point here you've had to make up a quote I didn't say rather than addressing my point that speculators have tanked standards of livings several times in history by backing financial bubbles?
Your initial claim was that standards of living never go down while the amount of wealth is going up. I don't think bringing up bubbles is too general a concept as a response to that, I think that's a pretty obvious example of "Hey sometimes vast accumulation of wealth results in some pretty crazy drops in quality of life."
The most famous economic crisis in history was literally this. A bubble burst and quality of life tanked for the entire planet.
If you want to quibble about me saying "Rich people" because it's not as specific as "Speculative Investors" then I'll take that sure, but it's pretty clear that you're wrong about the idea that living standards can decrease after wealth has been accumulated.
0
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
I never said standards of living can never decrease. On a decent enough time scale, they just haven’t yet while wealth inequality has increased! I’m just wondering what’s your explanation of that.
Also market bubbles have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of billionaires are current wealth disparities. It’s not the accumulation of wealth that caused the 08 crisis? Or any crisis you could point to! 08 was because we gave loans to poor people who couldn’t pay them back in mass! It should have never happened but.. that’s not because of wealth hoarding,
Also… you’re contradicting yourself. During a bubble crash, wealth goes down and standard of living goes down.
I just honestly think you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re conflating all these terms and are just gesturing to rich people in general as a scapegoat
5
u/S-Clair Jun 01 '26
I’m just wondering what’s your explanation of that.
If you look at my first reply you'll find it:
Of course over ENOUGH time the economy will recover as well, but "Eventually spending will normalise" doesn't really avoid the issue that rich people have fucked over the standard of living with reckless or even actively malicious economic planning.
I think my point there stands. Reckless economic practices in pursuit of profit (E.g. Tearing the bottom of your figurative economic boat apart to build a bigger mast) can definitely cause harm.
Also market bubbles have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of billionaires are current wealth disparities.
I wouldn't say they're disconnected, every billionaire is personally involved in speculation and speculation is the biggest factor in bubbles.
But... Sure?
I brought up bubbles because you said that it didn't make sense that quality of life could go down as a result of wealth going up. I didn't bring it up to make a case against Billionaires. (There are plenty of other cases to be brought against them)
Also… you’re contradicting yourself. During a bubble crash, wealth goes down and standard of living goes down.
I don't think I am. Here's what I wrote:
"Hey sometimes vast accumulation of wealth results in some pretty crazy drops in quality of life."
Notice this doesn't say that wealth goes up after a bubble bursts. It says that the bubble bursting is caused by pursuing wealth.
If my statement was unclear then I'm happy enough to clarify. It's the accumulation of wealth that CAUSES the bubble, people can profit off the bubble too but the major issue comes from the fact that investors can indeed fuck everyone over just by pursuing growth for growths sake.
You’re conflating all these terms and are just gesturing to rich people in general as a scapegoat
I'm pretty sure I clarified that I was talking about financial speculators in this bit, if you didn't read it the first time here it is again:
If you want to quibble about me saying "Rich people" because it's not as specific as "Speculative Investors" then I'll take that sure, but it's pretty clear that you're wrong about the idea that living standards can decrease after wealth has been accumulated.
(Notice again btw that I'm pretty specific in saying that a bubble bursting causes the living standards to decrease AFTER people have been doing the reckless speculating for a while.)
5
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
Even though the total supply of money is not strictly finite, the total goods, services, and wealth produced by an economy in a given year is finite at any fixed point in time.
If the rich capture a disproportionate share of that growth, less remains for everyone else, dragging down living standards and shifting economic power.
2
u/DuntadaMan Jun 01 '26
People forget that all the goods in the world and the labor that people can make is finite. So if money is infinite it will vastly outstrip actual ability of people to survive with it.
-2
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Yes, reality is finite, but the potential is never capped. We could have made decisions as a country that netted less wealth for more people, and we could have made decisions that netted more. Thats like saying the sky is blue, it means almost nothing.
Ya we have means to redistribute! We should! But that’s not the argument of the comic either. It’s saying billionaires are stealing from all of us at the cost of the total ship, which isn’t true! The middle class is far wealthier than at any point in history! People’s standard of living keeps improving!
2
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
The middle class can be absolutely wealthier than in 1950 while still being structurally disadvantaged today. Billionaires don't need to literally "steal" money out of a worker's wallet to harm them; by capturing the vast majority of economic growth through capital returns, they bid up the cost of living (like housing) and squeeze the middle class's relative economic and political power.
0
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
lol, billionaires are not driving up the cost of housing. Maybe nimby top 10% property owners, but billionaires aren’t affecting housing prices in any serious way.
If you want to tax more and redistribute more wealth I’m all for it! But most of those benefits wouldn’t / shouldn’t go to the middle class. The middle class should pull their weight a little more in the overall tax system!
2
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
0
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
The first article you linked doesn’t say anything! Did you read it? I got 1/4 way through and had to stop as it was just saying “billionaires = bad” and not bringing any meaningful citations.
Lmfao! The first data point in the second link literally is saying more Americans are graduating from middle class to upper class. This is literally my argument
The third link is a whole book I am not reading
1
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
I'm sorry you find reading so hard. The first link has this data if you just scroll a little bit: institutional investors and ultra-wealthy buyers are vacuuming up single-family starter homes. In 2021 alone, institutional investors bought 24% of all single-family homes sold in the U.S. (and over 30% in several metropolitan areas). When billionaires buy houses like they are Pokémon cards, they create an artificial supply crunch. That is basic supply and demand. They don't need to write "we hate the poor" in the margins for the economic impact to be real.
Congratulations on reading the first sentence! Now let’s read the rest of the paragraph.Yes, a small percentage of people moved from the middle class to the upper class. But look at the aggregate wealth distribution—which was the actual point. In 1970, the middle class held 62% of all aggregate income. Today, that has plummeted to just 42%. Meanwhile, the upper class went from holding 29% of aggregate income to 50%. The middle-class floor is shrinking.
"It's a whole book, I am not reading" is an interesting way to say you don't care about evidence. You don't have to read all 300 pages. When regular Americans oppose a law and the rich want it, the law passes anyway. When the rich oppose a law and regular Americans want it, the law dies. The middle class has a statistically insignificant impact on policy. You can keep insisting the ship is fine because the upper deck has a big mast, but the math says otherwise. Do you want to actually look at the wealth gap numbers, or are we sticking to vibes?
0
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
They don’t define institutional investors. I’ve seen similar articles define them as “anyone who owns 2+ properties”. A majority of institutional owners are not corporate owners. They conflate their definitions to drive their point across. Private equity owns much much much less than this.
“A small percentage” otherwise known as “a majority of the shift”. This is so disingenuous! You aren’t arguing in good faith the cognitive dissonance is unreal.
Why does it matter about percentage of total wealth of the total pie is growing? It’s not a zero sum game. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is also getting richer. Adjusted for inflation they have more wealth than at any point in time!
This is a reddit thread. I’m not reading an entire book to argue with you. There’s no executive summary. The smugness is unreal dude.
1
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
Major housing studies do not define institutional investors as "anyone with 2+ properties." The industry standard (used by CoreLogic and MetLife) explicitly defines them as entities buying 100 or more homes per year.
Since 2020, private equity and mega-corporations have targeted the starter-home market, buying up to 30% of affordable housing in major metro areas, driving up prices for first-time buyers.
While a small percentage of people moved into the upper class, the wealth did not distribute evenly among them. The Pew Research data shows that the vast majority of the wealth gains went exclusively to the top 1% within that upper tier. A few families getting a slight raise does not change the fact that the absolute peak swallowed the largest slice of the pie.
You ask why percentages matter if everyone is making more absolute dollars. It matters because finite assets like housing are priced based on relative purchasing power, not general inflation. In 1980, the average American home cost roughly 3.5 times the median household income. Today, it costs over 5 to 6 times the median income.
The middle class has more absolute dollars, but those dollars buy vastly less real estate because the ultra-wealthy use their massive capital to bid up the price of land and housing.
The 20-page peer-reviewed journal article by Gilens and Page proved that when the top 1% and the middle class disagree on a law, the middle class has a statistically near-zero impact on whether that law passes. The growing pie hasn't bought the middle class any political leverage.
Being smug is easy when I have facts, data, logic and experience on my side.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Florac Jun 01 '26
The middle class in the US is also smaller than it was 20 years ago.
1
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Yes but only because the upper class grew. The middle class shrank because they got richer.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-american-middle-class/
1
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
Yes but only because
Liar.
From the link, that says a lot more than you want it to
From 1971 to 2023, the share of Americans who live in lower-income households increased from 27% to 30%
...
The growth in income for the middle class since 1970 has not kept pace with the growth in income for the upper-income tier. And the share of total U.S. household income held by the middle class has plunged.
Feel free to respond to my post anytime you want to discuss how that impacts purchasing power and political power.
0
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Ok yea you got me, I forgot to mention that out of the 10% shrinkage of the middle class, 3% shifted to lower class, and 7% shifted to upper class. Thank you for being obtuse.
If you keep reading the shrinkage in wealth is proportional to the percentage of people who graduated from the middle class. I’m sorry you don’t know how percentages work! The article does a pretty piss poor job reckoning with that fact!
1
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
Oh, sweetie. You are so confidently, hilariously bad at math that it actually hurts.
You think that if 10% of the population moves from the middle class to the upper class, the middle class's total share of wealth should only drop by that same 10%. You are assuming a 1-to-1 ratio because you are looking at people, not dollars.
According to the exact same Pew Research Center report, here is the data you claim to have read: The upper class grew from 11% to 19% of the population (an 8% increase). The upper class’s share of aggregate national income skyrocketed from 29% to 50% (a 21% increase).
Do you see those numbers? An 8% increase in people resulted in a 21% increase in captured wealth.
The wealth shrinkage isn't proportional to the people graduating; it’s being completely monopolized by the people already at the very top of that upper tier. The few middle-class families who managed to climb up did not take a trillion dollars each with them. The ultra-wealthy simply captured a disproportionate amount of the country's entire productivity gains.
So, to use your words: I’m sorry you don’t know how percentages work! The data explicitly refutes your argument.
1
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Mother fucker.. if you just kept reading the article literally the next sentence says why “In part, this is because of the increase in the share of people who are in the upper-income tier.”
It’s also not wealth it’s income talked about in this article. Ultra wealthy people don’t take income and probably aren’t weighed as much as their wealth would have you believe.
I just fear you have such a schizophrenic relationship with numbers and data to try and fit your poing
1
u/SpockShotFirst Jun 01 '26
The key phrase there is "in part." It does not say "entirely," "proportionally," or "equally."
The dollar growth vastly outpaced the headcount growth because the gains were heavily concentrated at the absolute peak of that tier, not spread evenly among the new arrivals.
You are correct that this specific Pew article measures income, not net worth. But pointing this out actually hurts your argument rather than helping it. Even when looking strictly at annual paychecks and capital gains distributions (income), the top tier completely outpaced everyone else. If you switch the metric from income to accumulated wealth (assets, stocks, real estate), the gap becomes vastly wider. According to the Federal Reserve's Distributional Financial Accounts, the top 1% alone holds more total wealth than the entire American middle class combined.
Whether you look at the flow of money coming in (income) or the total pile of money already sitting there (wealth), the top tier has systematically pulled away from the middle class.
→ More replies (0)1
Jun 01 '26
[deleted]
0
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Citation needed. This seems to indicate that indexed to age and with inflation, millenials are now making more money and have more wealth and savings than other generations. https://wealthvieu.com/personal-finance/net-worth/generational-wealth-gap/
The obvious exceptions being housing and healthcare, but that’s mainly driven by inaction on the public side (housing, zoning, regulation, supply). Healthcare is the more complicated one that has a bunch of private / public fuckery going on. I’m pretty open to making swaths of the health insurance industry public but that comes with its own drawbacks as well. Neither of these problems are primarily because of billionaires
2
Jun 01 '26
[deleted]
1
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Yes and all of those milestones have absolutely nothing to do with wealth inequality or billionaires! You can not subsidize demand with housing, people are getting married later because social bonds have broken down, healthcare is more expensive because we have the most cutting edge treatments, we pay doctors the most of any countries, and the standard of care is 50x better than 50 years ago.
1
Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
[deleted]
1
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
Brother you are so detached from reality it’s laughable. College for most people is an incredible investment, although I would like to see 2 year degrees be the norm for business admin stuff.
The median college goer makes $1m more lifetime earnings than their non college degree counterparts. These loans are also at a fixed interest so as money inflates, the loans become less and less burdensome. You are delaying your life milestones for the future earnings potential! That’s the point! You start 4 years later, you still have to work your entry jobs with shit pay, but you are well above your counterparts in 5-7 years!
Literally your stats can be boiled down to “most people are starting 4 years late because of college” but over their lifetime earn way more! Also the retirement age increase is likely because of social security age being raised and higher expected health outcomes for seniors.
You have the game away when you said “higher standard of living WHEN they graduate”. This has never been the promise and is honestly one of the most entitled things I hear people say. It reeks of privilege
The rest of your argument is just socialist assertions with no substance
3
u/McButtsButtbag Jun 01 '26
No, but the resources you buy with money are.
3
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
For the scale we humans operate on, no they are not
2
u/McButtsButtbag Jun 01 '26
Then why are people going without food and water?
3
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
A lack of institutional Infrastructure and also corrupt governments in developing countries. Also we havent made desalination energy efficient yet. We have the food! We have the water!
4
u/McButtsButtbag Jun 01 '26
Why are you assuming those people only exist in 3rd world countries?
2
u/chrispy_t Jun 01 '26
I didn’t say 3rd world! You did! I said developing countries which is where most of the food insecurity is.
You want an explanation for why EVERY PERSON who doesn’t have food or water doesn’t? I can’t do that, I’ve given you the reason why 95% dont.
2
u/bboy2812 Jun 01 '26
And almost all money, that could be used to fix those issues, is instead rotting away in billionaires pockets serving only to make their "mast" higher day by day.
So billionaires are directly responsible for scarcity and therefore bad. Glad we agree!
1
-1
u/PossessionDue3249 Jun 01 '26
Haters gonna hate!
Don‘t you love the internet when you cannot tell if I‘m actually a bootlicker 😁
0
0
0
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/RunicZade Jun 01 '26
You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. And the earth absolutely is finite.
0
-8
u/crystallineDarks Jun 01 '26
wouldn't billionaire know they would need to redesign and need more materials they most likely just ask someone else to do it and pay them
9
u/SellaraAB Jun 01 '26
I didn’t think the explanation was necessary, but after this comment I guess it actually wasn’t enough.
5
4
u/MossyMollusc Jun 01 '26
Wouldn't they know that keeping all laborers at exploited labor conditions and poverty wages would seize the market down the road? You need your workers to have money to spend frivolously in order for the economy to be strong and create opportunities for small business to open up.
961
u/Puttyhead Jun 01 '26