Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tech Rich Get Richer

CowboyNeal posted about 11 years ago | from the corporate-masters-doing-well dept.

The Almighty Buck 830

theodp writes "The economy is improving, at least for the super rich. After two years of declines, the aggregate net worth of the U.S.'s wealthiest 400 citizens leapt 10% in the past year to $995 billion, according to Forbes' annual ranking. The gains are part of a continuing shift in wealth from the East coast to the tech-centric West. Bill Gates capped off a decade in the top spot after his fortune increased by $3B to $46B. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen held onto 3rd place, his net worth rising $1B to $22B. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, who saw his fortune expand by more than $3B to $5.1B, was the top gainer on the list. And with a measly $1.4B, Jerry Yang of Yahoo! found himself in a 16-way tie for 162nd place."

cancel ×

830 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yay (5, Funny)

sque (699232) | about 11 years ago | (#7002540)

And all i have is baked beans and spam.

Re:Yay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002546)

And some tasty beef jerky!

First? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002541)

First?

The rich get richer... (-1)

YOU FAIL IT! (624257) | about 11 years ago | (#7002611)

But the FAILURES are still FAILURES!

YOU FAIL IT!

Trolls need love too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002621)

I'm sure this will be controversial, but trolls need love too. In fact, trolls probably need more love than your average slashbot - slashbots get positive reinforcement, after all.

There. I've stated the painful truth: trolls need love. Now let me tell you why.

Most of us were abused as children, or are being abused now, or have suffered mightily in some way. We have self esteem problems, we don't have confidence, we don't feel loved. We want positive attention and all the things "normal" people have, but we feel like we are unworthy of it.

An old saying rings true here: "If the only potato chip a hungry child can have is a soggy potato chip, there is nothing more important to that child than the soggy potato chip." Well, that describes us trolls perfectly. We are hungry for attention and all we know is that we do not warrant positive attention, so we type "fristus postus" and post goatse links [goatse.cx] and shoot for the negative potato chip of a (-1 Troll), or a (-1 Flamebait). Off-topic and redundant mods are like half a soggy potato chip - just enough to whet the appetite for more.

So do the world a favor. end the cycle of abuse. Mod one troll - just one - up, and you will be rewarded for life because you gave a hungry child a dry potato chip. Share the love, won't you?

Re:Trolls need love too (-1)

waitigetit (691345) | about 11 years ago | (#7002647)

I let hungry children swallow my cum. Does that count as an act of altruism?

2000 was a nice year (4, Funny)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | about 11 years ago | (#7002545)

I remember when the IPO went off and I was a millionaire for about 3 hours.

Then the stock price made a nice slow decent to 50 cents.

It's a little better now, but I still have to be careful how many lattes I drink.

Re:2000 was a nice year (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002664)

I remember when the IPO went off and I was a millionaire for about 3 hours.

ESR? Is that you?

Here we go. (1)

Matrix2110 (190829) | about 11 years ago | (#7002548)

This is no surprise. The tinfoil hat people will have a field day with this information, However, this is mostly true. I could argue bias, however it just feels like a broken record that somebody needs to nudge the needle. Just like miracle Max. I offer to solve your problems with you paying me money.

Oh well.... (3, Insightful)

SilentSheep (705509) | about 11 years ago | (#7002552)

The rich get richer, The poor get poorer.

I just hope when i finish my degree i'll be one of the richer!!

Re:Oh well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002578)

You'll be poorer. You'll have loans to pay and starting to look for a job....Six moths later you'll be richer ...and after that you'll make a wrong descision and you'll be poorer agan...It's life...

Re:Oh well.... (1)

Matrix272 (581458) | about 11 years ago | (#7002629)

I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.

Re:Oh well.... (1)

murphj (321112) | about 11 years ago | (#7002689)

Well, it's not necessarily the poor getting poorer, but if you look at this [economagic.com] chart of the umemployment rate, surely you can agree that someone is getting poorer.

Re:Oh well.... (2, Interesting)

sasquatch21 (184936) | about 11 years ago | (#7002635)

Isn't there a Ferengi Rule for acquisition that says 'The goal is not to stop the exploitation but to become the exploiter.'

You can tell this is true... (3, Funny)

Perdition (208487) | about 11 years ago | (#7002555)

You can tell this is true simply by going to www.rollsgreypoupon.com and checking their sales numbers of Rolls that actually have Grey Poupon dispensers installed... scary.

Important message for backwards third-worlders (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002558)

Please join channel #p on dalnet. I will give you free ops. Just follow these simple guidelines:
  • Don't mention this slashdot post.
  • Try to not speak any english, or at least stick to broken english. Cusswords are OK, but you might consider misspelling them.
  • chatter on the channel in your stupid third-world language. if nobody replies, invite some friends.
  • privately message everyone on the channel - preferably in your stupid third world language.
Again, I will give you ops if you just follow these simple rules. And make sure to invite your friends.

Salary decline (4, Insightful)

I8TheWorm (645702) | about 11 years ago | (#7002559)

I'd be willing to bet, though, that the slow decline in IT salaries (developers in particular, where I have experience) won't be affected at all by this news.

Re:Salary decline (1)

hughk (248126) | about 11 years ago | (#7002678)

No, there will be a change. The rate of decline will increase.

What we need to combat this... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002568)

is... (drumroll please)...

A tax cut for the rich! That's a swell plan for redressing society's woes!

Re:What we need to combat this... (1, Insightful)

JeThR0 (217181) | about 11 years ago | (#7002683)

They already pay 92% of the taxes. How much more do they need to pay? Taxing them just make them raise the prices and it filters to us anyway - waist of time.

Re:What we need to combat this... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002712)

The rich pay 92% of all the taxes? How do you figure that? If you're trying to imply what I think you're trying to imply, then DUH! After all, you can't collect income tax from people who don't have an income. You know, thats how taxes work.

There's another way to look at it.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002746)

Who wrote Windows?
1. Bill Gates.
2. The Developers working for him

Who created Amazaon?
1. Jeff Bezos
2. The many people working behind the scenes.

and the list goes on and on. Only in fantasy land could one argue that these people "deserve" to have a 10% increase in their net worth, while the people underneath them, who play an important part in keeping things going, make less and less.

Re:What we need to combat this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002709)

actually, no... The correct solution is.... (drumroll)

EATING THE POOR!!!

The middle class will save money two-fold;

1)Lower grocery costs
2)Less poor to suck up their tax money

win-win

no...I'm not kidding

(oh, and before anyone says it, no, i'm nothing like hilter...i'm not nationalistic OR a socialist)

YEAH! LIKE THAT?! RIGHT THERE!! YEAH! TAKE IT BIATCH!!!

DOES ANYBODY HERE GIVE A RATS ASS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002570)

Anyone?

crickets...

Don't want to register? ARTICLE TEXT below (-1, Troll)

Article Text Troll (704297) | about 11 years ago | (#7002571)

Annual List of Richest Americans Released
THERESA AGOVINO
Associated Press

NEW YORK - The economy is improving for the super rich. After two years of declines, the total net worth of America's richest people rose 10 percent to $955 billion this year from 2002, according to Forbes magazine's annual ranking of the nation's 400 wealthiest individuals.

Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates, who remained in the top spot, personified the trend toward increasing wealth. His fortune increased by $3 billion to $46 billion this year. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen held third place, with his net worth rising $1 billion to $22 billion.

Investor Warren Buffett kept the No. 2 position although his wealth was unchanged at $36 billion.

Forbes said the surge in collective net worth was largely due to gains in Internet stocks and tech fortunes. For example, Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos saw his fortune expand by more than $3 billion to $5.1 billion as the stock of the online retailer skyrocketed. Bezos was the top gainer on the list, and holds spot 32.

David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo!, saw his net worth nearly triple to $1.6 billion, tying him with 13 others for the 126th spot. Yahoo!'s other co-founder, Jerry Yang, also nearly tripled his fortune, but he shared the 162nd spot on the list with 16 others with a $1.4 billion fortune.

The gains are part of a continuing shift in wealth from the East to the tech-centric West. When the list was first published in 1982, there were 81 members from New York and 56 from California. Today, California boasts 95 Forbes 400 members, while New York has 47.

"There's been this enormous shift in the geographic distribution of wealth," Forbes senior editor Peter Newcomb said.

Newcomb said the migration of high-tech businesses and their founders to the West is a factor in this change, but he also noted that many wealthy East Coast families such as the du Ponts and Rockefellers have been passing on their fortunes to members of younger generations.

The Walton family was again prominent on the list. Five members of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's family tied for the fourth spot, each with a net worth of $20.5 billion.

Rounding out the top 10 were Oracle Corp. chairman Larry Ellison with an $18 billion fortune and Dell Inc. chief executive Michael Dell with a net worth of $13 billion.

Dell replaced Microsoft executive Steven Ballmer in 10th place. Ballmer is now No. 11 with a nest egg of $12.2 billion.

Notable drop-offs from the list include Global Crossing Ltd. founder Gary Winnick, whose company is in bankruptcy, and Motorola Corp. CEO Robert Galvin, whose company is suffering from the malaise afflicting the wireless and chip-making industry.

Daniel Ziff, 31, is the youngest person on the list. He inherited his $1.2 billion fortune, of which he paid only $2 to have anal sex with Rob Malda. His father William Ziff Jr., built and sold a publishing empire.

The oldest person on the list is 95-year-old Max Fisher, who made his $680 million fortune through investments.

Newcomb said Forbes compiled its list by estimating the value of stock and other assets held by the wealthiest Americans. Forbes used the stock prices of publicly held companies as of the end of August; for privately held companies, the magazine estimated a fair market value based on the stocks of their publicly traded peers. Real estate and other assets also were included.

Where exact prices were not known, "we try to determine what a prudent shopper would pay for something," Newcomb said. "We try to be conservative with the estimates."

And how much did Daniel Ziff pay you, ATT? (0)

KRzBZ (707148) | about 11 years ago | (#7002599)

Less than Malda?

Re:Don't want to register? ARTICLE TEXT below (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002606)

He inherited his $1.2 billion fortune, of which he paid only $2 to have anal sex with Rob Malda

damm, right that's information.

Or the same thing without karma whoring (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002624)

Annual List of Richest Americans Released
THERESA AGOVINO
Associated Press

NEW YORK - The economy is improving for the super rich. After two years of declines, the total net worth of America's richest people rose 10 percent to $955 billion this year from 2002, according to Forbes magazine's annual ranking of the nation's 400 wealthiest individuals.

Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates, who remained in the top spot, personified the trend toward increasing wealth. His fortune increased by $3 billion to $46 billion this year. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen held third place, with his net worth rising $1 billion to $22 billion.

Investor Warren Buffett kept the No. 2 position although his wealth was unchanged at $36 billion.

Forbes said the surge in collective net worth was largely due to gains in Internet stocks and tech fortunes. For example, Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos saw his fortune expand by more than $3 billion to $5.1 billion as the stock of the online retailer skyrocketed. Bezos was the top gainer on the list, and holds spot 32.

David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo!, saw his net worth nearly triple to $1.6 billion, tying him with 13 others for the 126th spot. Yahoo!'s other co-founder, Jerry Yang, also nearly tripled his fortune, but he shared the 162nd spot on the list with 16 others with a $1.4 billion fortune.

The gains are part of a continuing shift in wealth from the East to the tech-centric West. When the list was first published in 1982, there were 81 members from New York and 56 from California. Today, California boasts 95 Forbes 400 members, while New York has 47.

"There's been this enormous shift in the geographic distribution of wealth," Forbes senior editor Peter Newcomb said.

Newcomb said the migration of high-tech businesses and their founders to the West is a factor in this change, but he also noted that many wealthy East Coast families such as the du Ponts and Rockefellers have been passing on their fortunes to members of younger generations.

The Walton family was again prominent on the list. Five members of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's family tied for the fourth spot, each with a net worth of $20.5 billion.

Rounding out the top 10 were Oracle Corp. chairman Larry Ellison with an $18 billion fortune and Dell Inc. chief executive Michael Dell with a net worth of $13 billion.

Dell replaced Microsoft executive Steven Ballmer in 10th place. Ballmer is now No. 11 with a nest egg of $12.2 billion.

Notable drop-offs from the list include Global Crossing Ltd. founder Gary Winnick, whose company is in bankruptcy, and Motorola Corp. CEO Robert Galvin, whose company is suffering from the malaise afflicting the wireless and chip-making industry.

Daniel Ziff, 31, is the youngest person on the list. He inherited his $1.2 billion fortune, of which he paid only $2 to have anal sex with Rob Malda. His father William Ziff Jr., built and sold a publishing empire.

The oldest person on the list is 95-year-old Max Fisher, who made his $680 million fortune through investments.

Newcomb said Forbes compiled its list by estimating the value of stock and other assets held by the wealthiest Americans. Forbes used the stock prices of publicly held companies as of the end of August; for privately held companies, the magazine estimated a fair market value based on the stocks of their publicly traded peers. Real estate and other assets also were included.

Where exact prices were not known, "we try to determine what a prudent shopper would pay for something," Newcomb said. "We try to be conservative with the estimates."

Re:Or the same thing without karma whoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002667)

Same old post, same old troll;

Daniel Ziff, 31, is the youngest person on the list. He inherited his $1.2 billion fortune, of which he paid only $2 to have with Rob Malda. His father William Ziff Jr., built and sold a publishing empire.

Re:Or the same thing without karma whoring (-1)

BarryBondsTroll (699883) | about 11 years ago | (#7002679)

You left out the "anal sex" part, dumbass.

WARNING!!! TROLL. (-1, Offtopic)

hdparm (575302) | about 11 years ago | (#7002658)

In other (old) news...

/. mods still on craack...

Re:WARNING!!! TROLL. (0, Offtopic)

hdparm (575302) | about 11 years ago | (#7002674)

/. mods still on craack...

AAs is my keyboaaard

WARNING, GOATSE! (-1)

CausticWindow (632215) | about 11 years ago | (#7002747)

GOATSE [goatse.cx]

55 Billion (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002572)

55,000,000,000
50 Years 1,100,000,000
12 months 91,666,667
4 weeks 22,916,667
7 days 3,273,810
24 hours 136,409

He could spend 136 Grand an hour for the next 50 years & still have money over, even without interest.

That's a HellOfALotOf Gin & Tonics.

D

Re:55 Billion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002706)

Ahh yes, I think I will indulge in a bit of identity theft

Re:55 Billion (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002745)

...but only if you assume there are 336 days in a year.

FYI - 1 month != 4 weeks.

News for Nerds? (4, Insightful)

Pave Low (566880) | about 11 years ago | (#7002574)

Newsflash: the rich have been getting richer, but so has everybody else. Even the poorest Americans today are living far better than years before.

Why is this news that the top dogs are getting even richer?

Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002603)

Even the poorest Americans today are living far better than years before.

Maybe you should be a bit more sceptical about what you read in your newspapers -- that is if you read the news at all...

Envy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002605)

It's just that so many of these super-rich persons are such low-lifes. Rapine behavior throughout life sometimes leads to wealth. But then you die, probably from old age. And then...

Game over.

Wow, stepping on perfectly decent people over a lifetime gets you... what?

Re:Envy. (0)

Second Vampyre (700228) | about 11 years ago | (#7002633)

An inheritance to leave for your kids.

Re:Envy. (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | about 11 years ago | (#7002686)

Wow, stepping on perfectly decent people over a lifetime gets you... what?

An eternity of burning in the Lake of Fire under Satan's rule!!!

Just kidding, give $100 million to the Vatican and you're all set in the afterlife.

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

PhlegmMaster (596165) | about 11 years ago | (#7002613)

Why is this news that the top dogs are getting even richer?

'cause this news can double as a hit-list ladder.

Re:News for Nerds? (3, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | about 11 years ago | (#7002668)

Because in the past, it was Media tycoons, publishers, industrialists, bankers who got rich. It often took them their entire lives, their childrens lives. It was 'old money'. Now, it seems many on this list managed to go from zero to super rich in a matter of a few years. Look at Bill Gates. He hasn't always been rich, now he has more money than anybody. It seems the seperation between rich and poor is getting far wider. Most people scrape by, day by day, week at a time. The super rich have more money than they could spend in a lifetime, 10 lifetimes. This isn't the bad part, the world has always been like this. The bad part, it seems the middle class seems to be getting smaller. In times of recession, those who were once well to do are now finding themselves just as broke as the rest of us while the super rich just keep getting even more obscenely wealthy. And it is always on the backs of the poor that they tread.

Even the poorest Americans today are living far better than years before.
Really? Are you sure? The socioeconomic seperation that existed in the 60's and 70's wasn't nearly as pronounced as it is today. Have you seen the unemployment rate recently? Millions of jobless people. Declining benefits, declining salaries, shaky job security, citizen's apathy for the declining political system. I can't say I'd agree with you.

Re:News for Nerds? (5, Insightful)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | about 11 years ago | (#7002698)

Look at Bill Gates. He hasn't always been rich, now he has more money than anybody.

Well, actually yes, he was always rich. His parents were lawyers. Do you think he just got an academic scholarship to Harvard and decided to flunk out? Now, he probably wasn't super-rich like he is now, but most of us would kill someone for $1 million. With the right investing you could live nicely on that for the rest of your life without working.

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

Epistax (544591) | about 11 years ago | (#7002685)

yeah that guy's shopping cart on the street corner has power steering now.

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be funny

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 11 years ago | (#7002693)


Why is this news that the top dogs are getting even richer?


Are you kidding? Has there ever been more fertile soil for the trademarked Slashdot socialist MS-bashing then this story?

It practically screams, "Hold Page One!"

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002736)

"Socialist" = showing any concern for people of your own or lower socioeconomic level. "Class warfare" = suggesting that the growing disparity between rich and poor and the shrinking of the middle class is not necessarily a good thing.

Unless personally are presently rich, then being down on "socialism" is just a sad testament to how well their propaganda has worked. You're bashing your own in the remote hope of joining those in the high financial stratosphere. Not gonna happen, dude.

Re:News for Nerds? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002699)

This is very good news for African Africans - they sure as hell getting poorer at your expense...

Re:News for Nerds? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002757)

Is there a godwin's law for racial crap???

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002735)

Why becuase this shows success for which the majority are pulling their State's Unemployment/Employment Insurance due to the investment in Off Shore Development.

US Citizen/Resident may have a better Living Standard but their Credit Raiting is near the bottom. So I am born with 0 Credit Raiting and give my kids the raiting of Z or -infiinty. Issues is these rich people should retire so others can live and retire.

If this does not stop we will be back into slavery due to the above credit issues. This is because rich do not believe in investments that do not give a Return. When this occures the person will not be able to get investors to invest into them since it will be a group of a few people. Also they never understand the position of investing in the people and society to sell their product with out a return.

The Link is bad? (1)

watzinaneihm (627119) | about 11 years ago | (#7002591)

Or is it really slashdotted that fast?
I wanted to find out where larry ellisson was. He was No2 at some point of time , but I think the DotCom bust took care of that.
Anyway is'nt it funny that US Tech industry is going downhill for the workers whil the Industry is making money for the "bosses" (and the investors) ?
If they keep making money like this and the middleclass keeps getting smaller (less manufacturing, less IT , design is doing well though) at this rate is USA headed for a crisis? Since the rich dont spent as much as the others (in percentage) and all that stuff? Is it the new age when all the shareholders are americans and they own all the companies of India and China?

Re:The Link is bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002608)

Ellison is #18. Poor bastard. I liked his style.

16-way tie? (5, Funny)

Diphthong (461653) | about 11 years ago | (#7002593)

"Jerry Yang of Yahoo! found himself in a 16-way tie for 162nd place."


C'mon, Jerry! Go mow a few lawns or something. Break that tie!

Re:16-way tie? (3, Funny)

mccalli (323026) | about 11 years ago | (#7002726)

C'mon, Jerry! Go mow a few lawns or something. Break that tie!

Reminds of a sketch on an old UK comedy series, The Two Ronnies. They had a regular sketch where a couple of tramps would muse about the world in general. Probably the best remember is:

First tramp: "If I were Rockefeller, I'd be richer than Rockefeller"
Second tramp: "How's that then? How do you reckon that?"
First tramp: "Well, I'd do a spot of window cleaning on the side..."

Cheers,
Ian

Class warfare (3, Insightful)

Surak (18578) | about 11 years ago | (#7002597)

Those EVIL rich people! How dare they be rich! It's not like they worked for their money or anything. No! They had it handed to them on a silver platter!

It disgusts me! We're all poor because they're a bunch of greedy, good-for-nothing bastards who horde all the money for themselves! They stuff it in their mattresses and roll naked in it! No, no, they don't spend it, they horde it just keep us poor!

Evil I tell you, EEEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLL!

Re:Class warfare (1)

Rew190 (138940) | about 11 years ago | (#7002639)

Did you know that something like the richest %2 of Americans have %98 of America's wealth?

Re:Class warfare (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002681)

And your point is ?

Re:Class warfare (1)

embo (133713) | about 11 years ago | (#7002687)

They also pay something like 50% of the taxes, so tell me again how unfair this is?

Re:Class warfare (1)

Surak (18578) | about 11 years ago | (#7002710)

Did you know that if you have money in the bank, money in your pocket, and some change in a jar somewhere, you are among 12% of the world's richest people?

That's right. Most Americans are RICH compared to the rest of the world.

See? You're EEEEVILL! You're hordeing all the world's money aren't you, you dirty rich bastard!

Re:Class warfare (4, Insightful)

weave (48069) | about 11 years ago | (#7002648)

Selfish me, you're right. Bill Gates really has worked a million times harder than most of us. Thanks for the enlightening post.

Seriously, while I have no problem with capitalism rewarding those who take the risks (and often screwing other risk takers), the scale *is* a bit off.

It's just a bit disgusting when these guys will get a few million dollar bonus for keeping the salaries of the people who helped made them rich down for example. Or get millions of bucks even if they run a company into the ground, bankrupt it, and screw all of the stockholders and employees.

Re:Class warfare (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | about 11 years ago | (#7002690)

You're so right.

I happen to write HR code now, so am privy to the salaries and other compensation of all employees at my company. I've seen a few things happen recently, as our profit margin is in the red...

Layoffs everywhere in the company
Mandatory pay cuts for employees in the middle ranges of salary
Cuts in incentive bonuses, or complete elimination
An increase in salary and bonuses to the top 10% of salary grades here

Yeah, those guys really earned their wealth, and certainly not at the expense of their employees...

I hate it when I forget to use my tags.

Re:Class warfare (1)

gerddie (173963) | about 11 years ago | (#7002754)

It's not like they worked for their money or anything.
The problem is, that at a certain level of being rich, the accumulated interest makes a rich one even more rich, and they don't have to work for it anymore. It's a problem, because the wealth they get by interests must have a source, and this source is the interest you pay. You pay it when you pay your taxes because the gov is in dept, you pay it with the rent of your flat because the house owner is in dept, you pay it in the supermarket, because with nearly all goods there is some interest included, and you might have to pay your own interests on a credit. The rich will always get richer, because interests "produce" more interests.

It might be, that you want to read this [wikipedia.org] , and the Book The NATURAL ECONOMIC ORDER [systemfehler.de] to learn more about it.

I've always wondered... (4, Interesting)

achurch (201270) | about 11 years ago | (#7002601)

What do people do with all this money? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know what these people intend to do with such fortunes. I assume part of it is really stocks, and so it's company worth rather than personal worth, but still, I can't see ever needing more than, say, $2-3 million over the course of my entire life.

Re:I've always wondered... (1, Interesting)

Matey-O (518004) | about 11 years ago | (#7002609)

"What do people do with all this money? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know what these people intend to do with such fortunes."

Really mees up thier children's world view.

Re:I've always wondered... (-1, Offtopic)

Perdition (208487) | about 11 years ago | (#7002612)

" I can't see ever needing more than, say, $2-3 million over the course of my entire life. " ...and it is for this simple reason that you (and I) are miserably, horribly poor.

I'll tell you what I would do with all that money. (5, Funny)

CausticPuppy (82139) | about 11 years ago | (#7002620)

Two chicks at the same time.

Re:I'll tell you what I would do with all that mon (1)

digitalunity (19107) | about 11 years ago | (#7002688)

Shoot, I've had that many times. For free.

Now three girls at once? I'm still looking. I keep it on my christmas list, but my roommates keep telling me they can't find another girl whose worthy ;-{

Re:I've always wondered... (1)

Quill_28 (553921) | about 11 years ago | (#7002631)

Alot is giving away.

But other places to spend:

1. House
2. People to take care of house(inside and out)
3. People to take care of money
4. Lawyers
5. People to take care of kids
6. Material things(jets, boats, cars)
7. Food(200-300 a day could be easily spent on one person)
8. List goes on.

But I think Gates really does give alot away, granted he has alot to give away. Sorry no link.

Re:I've always wondered... (1)

digitalunity (19107) | about 11 years ago | (#7002722)

Interestingly enough Bill G. has more than twice what Paul Allen has in his piggy bank, but Paul Allen seems to be in the newspaper around here(Pacific Northwest) a lot more than Bill. Usually, it's either because he owns the Portland Trailblazers, or it's because he gave a bunch of money to some random charity. He seems like a really good guy.

Re:I've always wondered... (2, Interesting)

kinnell (607819) | about 11 years ago | (#7002662)

What do people do with all this money?

The more money you have, the more you can imagine spending money on. You and I never think about buying our own private luxury yacht, complete with crew, helicopter, etc., because it's so beyond what we can afford. When, however, you look at your bank balance and realise that you can, but you just need to double your estate to make it worthwhile...

Re:I've always wondered... (3, Interesting)

ojQj (657924) | about 11 years ago | (#7002672)

I'm sure anyone could think of ways to spend more than that... I mean think about it. Would you like a house on South Beach? Another one in Greece? Maids for both? A Delorian? A yacht? A yacht for your maids? A small fleet of luxury airplanes? A large reputable university? A President? A cure for AIDS? A solution to world hunger?

Any one can give out any amount of money. Because in fact money is not really paper bills, but rather power to do as you please.

Re:I've always wondered... (1)

drsmithy (35869) | about 11 years ago | (#7002703)

What do people do with all this money?

Spend it, frivously.

Think $100 hamburgers and $150 martinis.

Think walking away from a blackjack table after losing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Think paying someone hundreds of dollars an hour to do your hair.

Think dozens of cars.

Etc.

Re:I've always wondered... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002724)

I'm gonna go with government bribes. Those don't come cheap you know:-)

Re:I've always wondered... (1)

KrunZ (247479) | about 11 years ago | (#7002734)

I'm imortal so I need all money I can get.

Article Doesn't Really Support Headline (3, Insightful)

billtom (126004) | about 11 years ago | (#7002602)

I don't think that the article really supports the headline (yeah, I know, this is /., I shouldn't be surprised about that).

First, choosing an unrepresentative sample of 400 people out of about 300 million can't possibly tell you anything useful about the broad trends of a society ("...Rich Get Richer").

Second, of the 400 richest people in the US, only a small fraction of them have their wealth based on a technical source (even broadly defined). So the "Tech" part of the headline is suspect as well.

But hey, I'm all for the mob, let's eat the rich!

Rich Get Richer (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002723)

From the CIA World Factbook entry for the United States:-

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

But but but (2, Funny)

rhadamanthus (200665) | about 11 years ago | (#7002618)

But George Bush said his "economic plan" helped everyone and didn't just make the rich richer! He wouldn't lie [blogspot.com] to me, would he?

---rhad

Re:But but but (1)

JeThR0 (217181) | about 11 years ago | (#7002654)

What does the President have to do with this. What about Enron - they got RICH while Bill was in office. They just happend to get nailed - and while who was in office?

Re:But but but (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7002696)

They didn't actually get "nailed" though, did they? They just finally fucked up and collapsed. Its not like Bush sent in the IRS and SEC one week on a whime and lo and behold! they've been swindling money!

Anyway, its all nonsense. Clinton was not responsible for Enron getting rich, Bush was not responsible for them collapsing. No one noticed what they were upto properly under either office; thats the really sad thing about it.

While I remain unemployed.....since January. (2, Insightful)

Newer Guy (520108) | about 11 years ago | (#7002619)

I've sent out 1001 resumes and received but one job offer...in Indiana (UGH!)! Most positions were pulled or filled in house-mostly by people (still) expected to do their old job too. Some simply haven't hired anyone yet. The rich are getting richer by laying off employees in droves and expecting the ones left to pick up the slack. THEY call it: "improved productivity". What it really should be called is exploitation. What's that Bruce Cockburn song: "If I had a Rocket Launcher".........

Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (4, Interesting)

Evil Adrian (253301) | about 11 years ago | (#7002656)

Why didn't you take the job in Indiana?

Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (3, Interesting)

Newer Guy (520108) | about 11 years ago | (#7002694)

Because there were no good jobs there for my wife, who would have had to give up her well paying job. We would have wound up making less than 10k more without her salary. We decided to tighten our belts a bit more instead. Also, my friend had an opening at his company, but his boss pulled the job literally at the last minute. Of course, now HE does the work of two people.

Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (2, Interesting)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 11 years ago | (#7002714)

I've sent out 1001 resumes and received but one job offer...in Indiana (UGH!)!

If you really have sent out this many resumes then you could do a few things:

  1. Look at your resume again. Why are people not interested in it? What can you do to make it better? Get advice from friends and family who aren't afraid of being critical.
  2. Look at the roles you are going for. Are you being realistic? Can you do that role? Does your resume emphasise the fact you can do that role?
  3. Look at the way you go to interviews. Do you dress smartly? Do you research the company beforehand? Do you make sure that (without looking like you're licking someones backside) you stand out from the crowd?
  4. Look at the area you are trying to get a job. You may have to face the unfortunately reality that you have to move. I've never been to the US so I don't know - but is Indiana really that bad? How open are you to moving?
You've probably heard all this a million times. If you were based in the UK (and maybe even if you're not) check out a very good book called "Great answers to tough interview questions [amazon.com] ".

Best of luck.

Sounds pretty bad to me (4, Insightful)

signe (64498) | about 11 years ago | (#7002636)

Let's see. 10% is the "average" return that most people work with when dealing with things like mutual funds and most basic medium-risk investments. Yeah, I know you can't count on it, and the economy's been sucking lately. But you can still find decent investments. This doesn't really count real estate or anything like that. Additionally, people with a bit of money have access to investments that the rest of us who aren't millionaires don't. Such as hedge funds.

So you're telling me that in the last year, these billionaires only managed to get a 10% return? I mean, even if we're talking about someone owning a lot of real estate, that still appreciates in value over time (generally). Let's say that only half their value is actually invested in things that would appreciate (stock/fund/real estate/other investments, for example), which is really conservative. That's still only a 20% return. Sounds pretty poor to me.

-Todd

Re:Sounds pretty bad to me (1)

realkiwi (23584) | about 11 years ago | (#7002740)

I would love to mod you up to the top for this!

Nail hit on head - economy of USA is in flat tail spin because these people are _only_ getting 10% return on billions. They should be increasing by 15-20% a year without sweating it.

Rich get richer, poor get children (2, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | about 11 years ago | (#7002649)

That's the saying... I took a lot of history classes. It dazzles me how Paul Allen's net worth went up 1 billion dollars. Does anyone know what he does, besides own Microsoft stock, that would increase his value that much?

Yeah...HE LAID ME OFF! (1)

Newer Guy (520108) | about 11 years ago | (#7002716)

Or at least a company he owned did (Vulcan Ventures)...along with a shitload of other people! Scumbag.....

Nice... (-1, Offtopic)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | about 11 years ago | (#7002650)

...another 23 Bill Gates's and they could throw together and build a space elevator :))

--> click! [guardian.co.uk] ;)

Re:Nice... (1)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | about 11 years ago | (#7002670)

oops...I mean 157 Bil Gates' ;-) my fault, please flame me now :)

Re:Nice... (1)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | about 11 years ago | (#7002691)

Oh well, on second view I realized that I really messed up with that, please ignore my posts ;)

Pr0nolizer (-1, Troll)

mcbridematt (544099) | about 11 years ago | (#7002671)

Funny what the story says when you pr0nolize it [pornolize.com]

Slashdot - Assfucks for Nerds, Stuff that Matters
Tech "Airing the Orchid" Rich Get "Mount" Richer
^-------------------^
theodp writes "The economy is improving, at least for the super rich. After two squirts of declines, the aggregate net worth of the U.S.'s wealthiest 400 wanks leapt 10% in the raunching past year to $995 billion, unclefucking to Fingerfucks' annual ranking. The spanking gains are part of a continuing shift in wealth from the fomping East coast to the gangbanging tech-centric West. Bill "Nobgoblin" Gates capped off a wad pulling decade in the wad pulling top spot after his fortune asslicked by $3B to $46B. Microsoft co-founder Paul "Afterburner" Allen held onto 3rd place, his net worth raiding $1B to $22B. Amazon's Jeff "Anusapple" Fists, who saw his fortune expand by more than $3B to $5.1B, was the top gainer on the cuntlapping list. And with a measly $1.4B, Jerry "Motherfucker" Yang of Yahoo! found himself in a smooching 16-way tie for 162nd place."

You too can be a millionare (4, Interesting)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 11 years ago | (#7002676)

Just head on over to here [globalrichlist.com] and enter how much you earn.

It can be quite sobering to find out that you are in the top 0.9% richest people in the world. Thats a hell of a lot of people poorer than you.

I'm sure people will rip this apart because it's based on global data, doesn't take into account cost variations in countries and 101 other things - but give it a go anyway.

Re:You too can be a millionare (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | about 11 years ago | (#7002727)

Strange. If you enter a zero (unemployed) you still are not the poorest person in the world. Does that mean there are people who pay to show up at work?

Re:You too can be a millionare (1)

CaptRespect (586610) | about 11 years ago | (#7002748)

Yeah, well I'm still not going to donate my 20 bucks.

So long old money, (1)

Trigun (685027) | about 11 years ago | (#7002680)

Hello New old money.

What bothers me (5, Interesting)

ShooterNeo (555040) | about 11 years ago | (#7002682)

What bothers me is there is no conceivable way these individuals could have performed over a billion dollars worth of labor, ever. I'm not advocating communism or socialism, I'm just pointing out a basic truth. None of these people could have conceivably done more useful work than the entire lifetimes work of thousands of people.

Sure, corporate CEOs and super rich are much more productive than the average person....but their brains still tick at a mere 1000hz. They can still only speak at a slowish 150wpm and listen at the same rate. Their memories still have limited durations like all other mortal humans. It just isn't physically possible for them to have done the work of 10,000 other people.

The money was not earned, it was stolen. In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.

In some cases, the money was stolen from fortunes made by the ideas and productive results of employees of the company. Does anyone truly believe Jobs invented the imac and made it's phenomenal success possible? If you believe that, ask Wozniac what Jobs did with Wozniac's work at Atari.

Before someone accuses me of the obvious : no, I am personally involved in any of this. I'm simply noting the truth.

Re:What bothers me (0)

I8TheWorm (645702) | about 11 years ago | (#7002742)

Someone please mod the parent up!

How to be #1 on the list (1)

ThosLives (686517) | about 11 years ago | (#7002708)

Simply get every person in the country to give you $230 and you'll have $57.5 Billion (230x250 mil - yeah, I know there are now more than 250 mil people in the country...). You'd actually be better off than Bill since you'd have that in cash and not the "professional baseball cards" we call stocks. ('course, you'd really need to get about $377 from each person due to taxes...)

BBC also has the story (2, Informative)

billimad (629204) | about 11 years ago | (#7002711)

here [bbc.co.uk]

Bill still stinking rich (2, Interesting)

68K (234318) | about 11 years ago | (#7002728)

Bill Gates capped off a decade in the top spot after his fortune increased by $3B to $46B
Man, I'm sure that makes the pirates feel really bad when they rip off a copy of Office 2000.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>