745
Rich People Are the Big Barrier to Stabilizing the Climate
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
745 points (98.2% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5289 readers
432 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A $122,100/year is well above the median income of any country. For the US median income is $46,625/year. So more then half of Americans are not part of the richest 10%. That is even more true for Europe, where incomes tend to be lower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
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.
Americans are cash rich but poor everything-else.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
The person you're reacting to mentions net worth. Owning a total of 138k is like a quarter of a house here
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.
You do realize that saying "Somewhat over half aren't", means that a very large number of people ARE, right?
Absolutly, I am just trying to put some numbers to it.