[ryandrake]

This is the obvious end-state of unregulated capitalism. Fewer and fewer people owning and benefiting from the means of production, and more and more people with nothing and nothing to do besides revolt and (eventually) chop heads off. All the ownership class needs to stop the "head chopping" part is a robust and powerful police/surveillance state, which we all know they are diligently working on right now.

[ta1243]

The wealthiest 10% of America have increased the ownership of wealth from about 40% in the 1970s to 70% today, with no sign of slowing.

A typical HN techbro may not care because they're likely in the wealthiest 35 million, but the only way for the top 3 million / 1% to continue growing at the same rate once the bottom 90% have nothing more to lose is to take the wealth from the 32 million between 1% and 10%.

It took 50 years for the bottom 90% to halve the ownership of wealth in the US. Once they are fully tapped out the only way the 1% will continue to increase their wealth is taking it from the 10%. Then the 0.1% from the 1%.

[chii]

wealth isn't a zero sum game. Not to mention that it's a false dichotomy to claim that the wealth increase could only have came from taking it from someone else.

[ryandrake]

The pie may be growing, but when the rich take proportionally more from the pie every time it grows, then to the poor, it might as well be zero sum. To use the other analogy: it's a rising tide, but only the rich have boats.

[Sohcahtoa82]

From a purely theoretical standpoint, you're correct.

In reality, it definitely feels like zero sum when the government moves to eliminate social programs so they can give a tax break to the rich.