this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
278 points (99.3% liked)

Mildly Interesting

22387 readers
545 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source: Federal Reserve

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 42 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

The weirdly comforting thing here is that more than half of the wealth is still in the bottom 99%. That means the masses still have economic power. The problem, of course, is that they cannot deploy it with the same coordination as the smaller group.

[–] Ziglin@lemmy.world 29 points 17 hours ago

Those last 9 percent might be hard to convince since they're already doing quite well.

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 10 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think it's comforting at all.

If you remove the top 1%, the remaining wealth is concentrated in the top 10%. This group of people is highly invested in the status quo; their wealth and power is usually used to prop up the current system.

These people are reffered to by many names: petit bourgeoisie, professional managerial class, small business tyrants, etc.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago

don't forget oligarchs

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 1 points 8 hours ago

It's almost doubly comforting to that 10% though, right?

How much land does this top 10% need? 🤔

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Power that can't be deployed is by definition not power at all though, right?

Odd observation

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but "the masses" are able to deploy concerted power, like in the instance of the harm done to Tesla sales lately. It's just more difficult to coordinate it.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Oh good, our dollars can go to another massive corporation that will do the exact same thing. Sometimes choice really isn't choice at all.

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Eh. If you're just not buying any new car, you've already paid off the one you have, then that is a choice - and no corporation is getting any more money from you as a result of it. But I feel the pain of what you're saying. The case you're describing really rears its head for things like groceries where you actually do need to just keep buying them forever, and you may not have a farmer's market around. But I think people could truly cut down on their car consumption a lot. Some Americans are getting new cars every three years or so.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Totally agree, I have never purchased a new car and probably never will. We try to car pool whenever possible as well. If public transportation was better I would consider using it more often.