History of the world, tbh. First it was hundredaires, then thousandaires, then millionaires, now billionaires. Eventually it will be trillionaires, and so on.

[–] philthi@lemmy.world 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, you're not wrong, but it's worth remembering that the scale of the difference has never been so radical. The wealth gap is wider than it has ever been.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Is it, though? Is it wider than a king's wealth versus a serf's? The scale is different I agree, but is the proportion, really?

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

Is it, though?

It is. A king could have 5,000 serfs and hey that's a lot of serfs. But it's nothing compared to tens of billions of dollars in an economy where most people make 35K a year. And serfs were not hot-swappable cogs like workers effectively are today. Losing a serf was a non-fungible, tangible loss.

It's apples to oranges comparing medieval feudalism to modern global capitalism, I think it's folly trying to say one is "better", but the scale of the latter certainly dwarfs the former into barely perceiveable insignificance.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Elon Musk's net worth is about the lifetime earnings of 280,000 people.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I wasn't trying to argue either of them being "better". I just presented kings vs serfs as an example of obvious wealth disparity in history, but I could have equally said roman emperor and roman slave, of which the difference in wealth would be, well, infinite really.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 hours ago

I know you weren't, but if I didn't put that disclaimer there someone would will themselves into thinking I was because this is the internet.

load more comments (4 replies)