How does being rich hurt the poor, or make someone poor?

[OldWiseGuy]

The rich generally have lots of money and lots of stuff. But how does this negatively affect the poor or cause poverty?

How does owning expensive homes, vehicles, yachts, clothing, a second home, stocks, bonds, other real property, or taking great vacations, sending kids to college, etc. cause poverty for others?

All these things cause money to either move throughout all levels of the economy, or is saved in banks and is available to all who qualify to borrowing it.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

It doesn't always cause poverty for others, but it can.

I.E.- I work for a family owned company. Most of the decision making positions are relatives and I've been here for nearly a decade. The current owners inherited this company from the founder. They are not well-suited to their positions and have made poor decisions that have cost the company millions of dollars.

Who pays to recoup these losses? The employees of course! Rounds of layoffs. The people retained have to accept reduced wages and increased responsibilities.

We are all "pulling together", but some of us obviously have less, while others do not.

 

[Hank77]

The rich generally have lots of money and lots of stuff. But how does this negatively affect the poor or cause poverty?

How does owning expensive homes, vehicles, yachts, clothing, a second home, stocks, bonds, other real property, or taking great vacations, sending kids to college, etc. cause poverty for others?

All these things cause money to either move throughout all levels of the economy, or is saved in banks and is available to all who qualify to borrowing it.

It doesn't. That is not the issue at all.

When corporate heads salaries increase at a rate much higher than the lowest paid employees that creates a problem. The lowest paid employees can never get ahead of the cost of living.

 

[LoAmmi]

The rich generally have lots of money and lots of stuff. But how does this negatively affect the poor or cause poverty?

How does owning expensive homes, vehicles, yachts, clothing, a second home, stocks, bonds, other real property, or taking great vacations, sending kids to college, etc. cause poverty for others?

All these things cause money to either move throughout all levels of the economy, or is saved in banks and is available to all who qualify to borrowing it.

It's less about people having more than it is about people with more rigging the system so that they get more and more of the pie while those below them get less and less.

 

[RGW00]

The rich generally have lots of money and lots of stuff. But how does this negatively affect the poor or cause poverty?

How does owning expensive homes, vehicles, yachts, clothing, a second home, stocks, bonds, other real property, or taking great vacations, sending kids to college, etc. cause poverty for others?

All these things cause money to either move throughout all levels of the economy, or is saved in banks and is available to all who qualify to borrowing it.

It can cause poverty for others if they get discouraged and realize that they can't possibly bring themselves to gaining that much money because it's impossible in their situation. The opposite is true: They can get rich from seeing the materialistic ways of the person that has it (AKA coveting) and then lose it all because that's just the reason they wanted it for: the world.

I don't think it's bad to be rich, however, God blessed Job, Abraham, Solomon, and so much more with riches that would have probably been more than Bill Gates at the time. It just depends on how you went about getting rich, what you do with it, and how you view yourself with it.

God blesses the poor just as much as He can bless the rich. Just don't let it go to your head with all the money. You would know if that money came from your efforts or from God's.

 

[Tolworth John]

The rich generally have lots of money and lots of stuff. But how does this negatively affect the poor or cause poverty?

Apart from causing envy it shouldn't.
There is nothing wrong with earning or inherting wealth.
It's what you do with it that counts.
Look at the story of the rich man and the beggar. The rich man did nothing to help the beggar, he didn't even send him the left overs from his meals.

Do we help the poor? eg do we use the self service tills or queue to use a manned check out. Someones job is at risk. Do we buy from companies that exploit the poor?
How generous are we to charities etc etc.

 

[Aldebaran]

How does owning expensive homes, vehicles, yachts, clothing, a second home, stocks, bonds, other real property, or taking great vacations, sending kids to college, etc. cause poverty for others?

All these things cause money to either move throughout all levels of the economy, or is saved in banks and is available to all who qualify to borrowing it.

They don't cause poverty at all. As you said, the buying of those things create jobs for those who manufactured them in the first place.

However, those in poverty will look at those who are rich and easily believe that the rich have what the poor would have had if they hadn't been so greedy. In reality though, that's not the case. The rich person has a nice home. Does that mean the poor person can't have a nice home? No. If the poor person had the money to build a nice home, and managed it well, he would be able to have a nice home as well.

 

[zephcom]

The rich generally have lots of money and lots of stuff. But how does this negatively affect the poor or cause poverty?

How does owning expensive homes, vehicles, yachts, clothing, a second home, stocks, bonds, other real property, or taking great vacations, sending kids to college, etc. cause poverty for others?

All these things cause money to either move throughout all levels of the economy, or is saved in banks and is available to all who qualify to borrowing it.

When the rich become so wealthy they own so much money that the remaining supply of money is not sufficient to provide adequate income for the rest of the people then their wealth negatively affects the poor.

For instance, I read somewhere that there are six individuals on the planet that own or control more wealth than the poorest half of the entire planet's humanity. Those six people have more wealth that 3.5 BILLION people combined have. And I also understand that statistic is quickly becoming five individuals instead of six.

Money, which is the way everything on the planet functions, is a limited commodity. More can be made but those in charge try not to despite the rising number of people who need to share it.

As that wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, there will be less and less wealth to be spread around to everyone else. That can not help but effect the masses negatively.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The rich generally have lots of money and lots of stuff. But how does this negatively affect the poor or cause poverty?

How does owning expensive homes, vehicles, yachts, clothing, a second home, stocks, bonds, other real property, or taking great vacations, sending kids to college, etc. cause poverty for others?

All these things cause money to either move throughout all levels of the economy, or is saved in banks and is available to all who qualify to borrowing it.

When wealth is spent...or invested...basically, when it moves around the economy, it's a good thing for the economy. If, however, wealth simply sits in one place and doesn't move around the economy at all...it's a bad thing for the economy.

These are generalized statements, but they represent basic economic facts. So arguably, being "wealthy" doesn't hurt the poor...unless that wealthy person basically holds onto large amounts of wealth that never leaves his possession. If enough wealthy people do this for long enough...you start to see larger and larger income gaps and an increasing number of poor people.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

When the rich become so wealthy they own so much money that the remaining supply of money is not sufficient to provide adequate income for the rest of the people then their wealth negatively affects the poor.

For instance, I read somewhere that there are six individuals on the planet that own or control more wealth than the poorest half of the entire planet's humanity. Those six people have more wealth that 3.5 BILLION people combined have. And I also understand that statistic is quickly becoming five individuals instead of six.

Money, which is the way everything on the planet functions, is a limited commodity. More can be made but those in charge try not to despite the rising number of people who need to share it.

As that wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, there will be less and less wealth to be spread around to everyone else. That can not help but effect the masses negatively.

Bill Gates doesn't get a dollar richer at the expense of anyone. He gains a dollar by providing technology to people which helps enrich their lives.

 

[zephcom]

When the rich become so wealthy they own so much money that the remaining supply of money is not sufficient to provide adequate income for the rest of the people then their wealth negatively affects the poor.

For instance, I read somewhere that there are six individuals on the planet that own or control more wealth than the poorest half of the entire planet's humanity. Those six people have more wealth that 3.5 BILLION people combined have. And I also understand that statistic is quickly becoming five individuals instead of six.

Money, which is the way everything on the planet functions, is a limited commodity. More can be made but those in charge try not to despite the rising number of people who need to share it.

As that wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, there will be less and less wealth to be spread around to everyone else. That can not help but effect the masses negatively.

Bill Gates doesn't get a dollar richer at the expense of anyone. He gains a dollar by providing technology to people which helps enrich their lives.

I have a lot of admiration for Gates as a person and his efforts to use his money to better humanity. But your statement is really wrong. There has been damage done to businesses, corporations and individuals throughout his acquisition of wealth.

In his defense, he isn't alone among the wealthy who have ran roughshod over others in their quest for riches.

 

[Rubiks]

When the rich become so wealthy they own so much money that the remaining supply of money is not sufficient to provide adequate income for the rest of the people then their wealth negatively affects the poor.

For instance, I read somewhere that there are six individuals on the planet that own or control more wealth than the poorest half of the entire planet's humanity. Those six people have more wealth that 3.5 BILLION people combined have. And I also understand that statistic is quickly becoming five individuals instead of six.

Money, which is the way everything on the planet functions, is a limited commodity. More can be made but those in charge try not to despite the rising number of people who need to share it.

As that wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, there will be less and less wealth to be spread around to everyone else. That can not help but effect the masses negatively.

Honest Question: Wouldn't money that does nothing but sit a rich person's bank account deflate the economy, thus increase the purchasing power of money?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I have a lot of admiration for Gates as a person and his efforts to use his money to better humanity. But your statement is really wrong. There has been damage done to businesses, corporations and individuals throughout his acquisition of wealth.

In his defense, he isn't alone among the wealthy who have ran roughshod over others in their quest for riches.

How is my statement wrong? Provide some evidence, please.

 

[zephcom]

When wealth is spent...or invested...basically, when it moves around the economy, it's a good thing for the economy. If, however, wealth simply sits in one place and doesn't move around the economy at all...it's a bad thing for the economy.

These are generalized statements, but they represent basic economic facts. So arguably, being "wealthy" doesn't hurt the poor...unless that wealthy person basically holds onto large amounts of wealth that never leaves his possession. If enough wealthy people do this for long enough...you start to see larger and larger income gaps and an increasing number of poor people.

I see this meme about how the wealthy keep investing and making others wealthy a lot. Like a lot of things that are not true, repeating it over and over again will lead people to believe it is true.

The intent of investing is a process of using one's money to make even more money. The money leaves the 'possession' of the wealthy only temporarily. Certainly a bad investment will turn out to be a permanent loss, but people skilled in investing rarely have that happen to them. The ones who are not skilled at are not investors for long.

On the Capitalist side of money, jobs are designed to return more money to the employer than the job costs. Capitalism is even self correcting for those few who don't get more back from a job than the job costs...they go broke and don't remain in business long enough for significant amounts of money to return to the masses.

Capitalism is similar to casino gambling, even though some people make money from it, it is the owners who consistently make money. In 1935 a board game was created called Monopoly. It is played even today. The way one wins the game is to capture all the money in the game and force everyone else to go broke.

It is based on Capitalism. And just as people in the game 'invest' their money in improving their properties because it results in them getting more and more money, that is the only reason the wealthy invest their money. They end up with even more money.

America, specifically and the rest of the planet generally, are in the final stages of a real life game of monopoly. And just like the board game, there is only one winner and everyone else goes broke.

Unfortunately, unlike the board game, the losers don't just go to the kitchen, make sandwich, get something to drink and come back to see who wins. In the real life game, people die.

 

[zephcom]

Honest Question: Wouldn't money that does nothing but sit a rich person's bank account deflate the economy, thus increase the purchasing power of money?

I'm not sure what your intent with the question is. Bank accounts are designed to allow banks to lend money and charge interest. Putting large sums of money into bank accounts would only serve to make the banker happy and not affect the economy at all.

I suspect that if those six people I talked about took all their money and burned it, we would likely see first a massive recession followed by the penny becoming much more valuable as the economy adjusted to have less money available.

Money is merely a medium of exchange. If there is a lot of money, one needs more and more of it to buy candy with. If there is very little money, one needs far less of it to buy candy with.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The rich generally have lots of money and lots of stuff. But how does this negatively affect the poor or cause poverty?

How does owning expensive homes, vehicles, yachts, clothing, a second home, stocks, bonds, other real property, or taking great vacations, sending kids to college, etc. cause poverty for others?

All these things cause money to either move throughout all levels of the economy, or is saved in banks and is available to all who qualify to borrowing it.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

 

[zephcom]

How is my statement wrong? Provide some evidence, please.

Way back in the DOS days, I had a sideline of building computers for businesses. Microsoft was selling their DOS for something like $80. I was installing a DOS called DR-DOS on my machines. It cost $20.

One of my customers was using whatever the Microsoft writer program of the day was. Microsoft upgraded their writer program. The customer tried to install it and a window popped up that said something like, "This program only runs with Microsoft DOS".

The called me in to fix it. I called DR-DOS and they sent me a new version of their DOS which included whatever piece of code Bill used to check an see if the DOS was Microsoft or not. Once DR-DOS passed that test, there was never any problem with running Microsoft programs on DR-DOS.

DR-DOS eventually went out of business. Not that they were bad, but not everyone understood the underhanded way Microsoft operated.

I suspect there are books and books out in the world which document many of the tactics Microsoft has used over the years to get and maintain their dominance. I quit feeding that company a decade or more ago and no longer even care to keep up with them.

Gates accomplished a huge undertaking. But that doesn't mean there are no bodies laying around in the aftermath. The European Union is constantly fighting them for their monopolistic behavior.

But, like I said in the beginning, I admire him for the way he is using his wealth. I just don't like the way he got that wealth.

But that is just me. You are free to have other opinions of him.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Way back in the DOS days, I had a sideline of building computers for businesses. Microsoft was selling their DOS for something like $80. I was installing a DOS called DR-DOS on my machines. It cost $20.

One of my customers was using whatever the Microsoft writer program of the day was. Microsoft upgraded their writer program. The customer tried to install it and a window popped up that said something like, "This program only runs with Microsoft DOS".

The called me in to fix it. I called DR-DOS and they sent me a new version of their DOS which included whatever piece of code Bill used to check an see if the DOS was Microsoft or not. Once DR-DOS passed that test, there was never any problem with running Microsoft programs on DR-DOS.

DR-DOS eventually went out of business. Not that they were bad, but not everyone understood the underhanded way Microsoft operated.

I suspect there are books and books out in the world which document many of the tactics Microsoft has used over the years to get and maintain their dominance. I quit feeding that company a decade or more ago and no longer even care to keep up with them.

Gates accomplished a huge undertaking. But that doesn't mean there are no bodies laying around in the aftermath. The European Union is constantly fighting them for their monopolistic behavior.

But, like I said in the beginning, I admire him for the way he is using his wealth. I just don't like the way he got that wealth.

But that is just me. You are free to have other opinions of him.

Was anyone coerced to buy a computer or software from Microsoft?

 

[ubicaritas]

It's less about people having more than it is about people with more rigging the system so that they get more and more of the pie while those below them get less and less.

Exactly. People with power write the laws to favor their rent-seeking behaviors.