Just what we need, more fucking rich people.
Just think of all the thousands of dollars of extra tax revenue.
And think about how that tax revenue gets spent on weapons and not healthcare.
(Given those millionaires were able to circumvent China’s strict capital controls. Even if some of them did I’m sure they’d find a way of circumventing taxes in their new host country also)
hundreds
Dozens
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, gusanos.
Problem is, people like that tend to be the driving force in aggressive rhetoric against their former homeland
they would anyway. no point in catering to them.
Come to the Corporatocracy Haven! Milk it’s juicy population and be Free™.
Please keep them, we don’t need more millionaires.
What is wrong with being a millionaire?
The system that allows them to exist and that they control to always keep like that (and maybe you guys wanted to say billionaire, with current exchange even being multimillionaire is not something that distant)
So I shouldnt be allowed to have commerce with whom I please? I shouldnt be able to save/invest money? Most millionaires are people with a modest income.
Unless you re part of a coop (based) or run your business as a one man show, you’re reliant on the labour and appropriation of surplus value of others to amas such wealth (aka committing capitalism).
Where do people that dont want to (or cant) be an owner get their income from?
And also most millionaires do it via things like a 401k and just boring saving over decades.
Where do people that dont want to (or cant) be an owner get their income from?
From selling their labour aka wageslavery. Usually.
And also most millionaires do it via things like a 401k and just boring saving over decades.
401k and savings usually have investments, where appropriation of labour surplus happens.
Outside of stealing from other people, how would people make a living that dont own a company?
I mean, given enough time, just a mere salary man can become a millionaire (and with more time, a multi-millionaire) only by keeping their spending low and stashing the rest of their net salary into index funds. Sure, that’s capitalism which isn’t too popular in Lemmy, but it’s just an example of how a millionaire can really just be a normal, somewhat frugal, person. They aren’t showing their wealth though because that’s the reason they are able to save such a nest-egg so you can’t really tell if your neighbor is secretly wealthy or not.
Billionaires (and “multihundredmillionaires”) are a completely different group of people though, and no normal person is able to amass such wealth without a shit-ton of luck and most probably some abuse as well.
I mean, given enough time, just a mere salary man can become a millionaire (and with more time, a multi-millionaire) only by keeping their spending low
Technically true, if they are a highly skilled worker that’s in low supply
stashing the rest of their net salary into index funds
Index funds usually invest in other firms, where profits (read: appropriated surplus value of workers) is distributed among stakeholders.
Billionaires (and “multihundredmillionaires”) are a completely different group of people though, and no normal person is able to amass such wealth without
a shit-ton of luck and most probably some abuse as wellan economy that is organized in such a way, where no matter you work you’re at the mercy of the firms owners and their managment, where your surplus value gets appropriated and where refusing to participate in such system lands you on the street because you can’t pay rent.ftfy. please consider reading theory
Technically true, if they are a highly skilled worker that’s in low supply
You don’t have to earn wild sums of money, you just have to be able to live below your means and save the rest. Sure, the absolute poorest people don’t have that luxury, and also in very expensive locations it’s the same even for some relatively high salary people too. For the rest of us, assuming that our capitalistic system doesn’t collapse, 500e (or dollars) per month for ~30 years gets you there. If you’re able to start while you’re 20 by some miracle, you would be a millionaire by 50. Or, 300e a month for roughly 37 years gets you above the mark. Now, one million euros or dollars will not buy you the same stuff then as it would today so you still wouldn’t be “filthy rich” but that wasn’t the point here. Also, if you were to just stop saving after passing the magical two commas, the money would theoretically double in 9 years making you a multi-millionaire. This is assuming 9% yearly interest for your investments over the whole time which is slightly below S&P500 all-time average (not accounting inflation).
Compounding interest is the keyword and that’s why rich people keep on getting richer and poor people poorer - it works both ways, in savings and in loans. Not everyone has to achieve the million coin mark either - just be aware of how the system functions and make your decisions accordingly. If you decide to live in a nicer location or enjoy traveling or nice vehicles or eat nice food or do whatever instead of accumulating wealth, it’s completely fine. That’s actually required for our eternal growth in the market after all. On the other hand, wealth accumulation gives you options in the future if you get fed up with your boss for example.
ftfy. please consider reading theory
I think you might’ve misunderstood my point, and that’s probably my bad for leaving it a bit ambiguous. At least in my mind, the people that get to hundreds of millions or into billions, are usually some startup founders (where success is mostly luck) or people achieving big corporation CxO level which usually is not happening by just making friends on the way climbing up the corporate ladder. That also needs a little bit of luck, because as you mentioned, you could be shafted at any point in your career hard. Also you need to be a workaholic and at least slightly narcissistic. Getting born into the right family wouldn’t hurt either. So that’s not something everyone could do in my opinion and that’s why I wouldn’t mix “normal” workforce into this at all.
And well, I don’t know what you mean by “refusing to participate in such system”. Usually people have a choice of working for a big corporation or choosing to work for smaller companies that tend to be more employee-friendly, at least in my experience. Maybe there are differences in some expertise areas that I’m not aware of but otherwise if you wish to work for some humane employers, seek smaller companies and skip the Elon Musk -like sweatshops that try to squeeze you to work 60 hours a week minimum all the time. Relocation is not an entirely bad thing either if that helps you find a healthier workplace. Now, if you refuse to work at all, well, that wouldn’t work even in socialism or in small African villages where everyone expects others to contribute to the village functioning. You just have to find the right “village” that you want to help keep on running and maybe grow it while at it if everyone so desires.
So a surgeon doesnt earn their wealth off their own labor & value? Hard disagree, even accounting for their assistants that couldnt do what they do. The surgeon provides some amount of value, their staff makes them more efficient, so theres an equilibrium where theyre being fairly compensated. The hospital owners and investors are the leeches.
This is a fundamental sticking point between people who believe in any form of capitalism and communism. If someone develops a method of creating a surplus of labor, under communism, they have no right to that surplus beyond the surplus they would get as a worker.
Keyword surplus. If a surgeon would bring in $1000 a day alone and an assistant brings this to $1200, if the assistant gets $200 then theres no skimming, a win-win. Like i said, in reality there ARE people skimming the surplus, but there are laborers that produce significant value on their own.
So a surgeon doesnt earn their wealth off their own labor & value?
Sure they do. The question that I answered was in regards to commerce/investing. (Rereading the question, it included also saving where highly skilled workers operating where there’s a low supply comes to play - assuming that’s why you mentioned surgeons)
The surgeon provides some amount of value, their staff makes them more efficient, so theres an equilibrium where theyre being fairly compensated. The hospital owners and investors are the leeches.
If the surgeon employs the their staff they’re engaging in capitalism, but I’m assuming you meant that they are also an employee of the hospital in your example.
Yeah my main point being that the 1 million mark is a bit low for automatically declaring someone a capitalist taking advantage of others. Youre right that the majority do definitely have to at least invest to get there, though.
It really depends, millionaire in NYC? Dime a dozen, millionaire in Mexico, NY? They would be able to mess with local politics, screw up the housing market, etc. And I really mean multi- millionaire but that’s what I assume would be coming this way from China, not someone with 1-1.5 million, but a couple times that at minimum.
Yeah. I think a lot of people hear Chinese millionaire and think of someone like Jack Ma. The problem in China is that a millionaire can include roles like plant manager and senior designer, people you need to continue developing the economy.
Better millionaires than billionaires.
China saw the world’s biggest outflow of high-net-worth individuals last year and is expected to see a record exodus of 15,200 in 2024, dealing a further blow to its economy, a new report says.
It’s interesting how through the neoliberal lens this looks like “a blow” to their economy. But from a Keynesian or MMT lens, China doesn’t need high net worth individuals to drive the economy. Public investment can and has done this in China as well as many other parts of the world.
From another angle, letting high net worth individuals flee, could reduce apparent wealth inequality in China.
I mean, if they are fleeing, they are fleeing with their money. Capital is essential for an economy and if capital leaves the country, it means that you have less growth, less investment and less prosperity in general. You can’t even tax that capital once it has left the country.
Plus, many of those low-millionaires are probably some of the most competent and knowledgeable people (not the hundreds-million industry captain with ties to the government, but the plant manager or lead researcher, lead developer etc. i.e. those who’ve made a small fortune through their ability). Getting rid of lead people is not exactly beneficial for an economy.
And sure, making everyone poor will reduce apparent wealth inequality, you’re right.
It’s actually difficult to bring their money with them due to strict transfer limits. China has strict capital controls.
Even if they exfiltrate the money, China as every other fiat economy can replace it using a keyboard.
If these folks are indeed knowledgeable and experienced workers, then having them leave isn’t ideal. But whether they’re such people or not is an open question. They might also be people who are good at exploiting others’ labor for profit, just like their western many-multi-mil counterparts.
exactly right
In fiat economies financial capital isn’t a limiting factor since it can be and is created out of thin air as needed. The need for private citizens’ money to grow the economy is often repeated idea but it doesn’t hold water when you consider how their money was created in the first place. Specifically, currency issuing governments spend money into existence before being able to tax it. Therefore they don’t need to tax in order to spend. If there are the real resources needed for certain economic activity to occur but the limiting factor is the lack of money, a competent government will spend the required money into that sector and the activity will materialize. There’s no need to wait for private individuals to accumulate it over time in order to spend it to enable this economic activity. Crucially, even if you wait, the money is still going to come from a government’s “printing press.”
Other types of capital such as human, intellectual, can limit growth since they’re not as easily replaceable. That’s why I think your second point about who those people are is important. It is possible that they’re knowledgeable workers in different domains. It is also possible that they’re people skilled in exploiting others. If we assume the former, losing them isn’t ideal. If we assume the latter, then it’s a social value judgement of whether you want to have more or fewer of these types in your society, but they’re not essential for economic growth.
Fiat currency doesn’t work like that. It is a way to hold value so that a potato farmer isn’t exchanging a bushel of potatoes for a dentist appointment. It still needs to be backed by productivity in the economy, otherwise you just get hyperinflation. There is no magic.
And between every dollar being backed by a bushel of potatoes or a dentist appointment and hyperinflation, lies a vast gap of other possibilities. For example dollars backed by future productivity that people believe will materialise which doesn’t exist today. If you factor in debt and look at fiat as a form of debt it should become more obvious why you can create money today that enables people to do work which they otherwise wouldn’t, without causing inflation, let alone hyperinflation, under the assumption of available real resources (labor, tools, metal, land, knowledge, etc).
But you can’t just assume those real resources exist, especially if you have just triggered a brain drain and disrupted your economy.
Does China have capital flight laws? Can they allow the millionaires to leave whilst retaining the actual material wealth?
I think that, in theory, you can’t really move all your money outside of China. In practice, I’m pretty sure there’s a huge loophole in Macau where you can exchange all your RMB money for casino chips and then exchange them for dollars (or something like that) instantly, allowing you to move huge sums outside of China. There are probably a thousand other ways to bring out money we surely don’t know about.
There are tons of millionaires and billionaires in China, and I doubt they want to be at the complete mercy of the CCP. They’ve been moving money outside of China for decades now, with this and other loopholes. Many of the billionaires are complicit with members of the party, obviously, sharing the money with those in power in order to do what they please.
Money is just a social contract though. What they can’t take with them are the means of production. Stuff like factories that they used to own will stay in China. What people in the west don’t seem to understand is that the economy is fundamentally about allocation of labor and resources towards meeting the needs of the people. Money of itself has no inherent meaning, that’s why the government can just issue as much currency as it needs.
Many of the billionaires are complicit with members of the party, obviously, sharing the money with those in power in order to do what they please.
If that was the case in practice then they wouldn’t be fleeing China to go to places like US where they can do as they please.
Yeah, is there some kind of meaningful drawback or are they just reducing inflation when this happens?
The article doesn’t mention it, but it’s also difficult to bring their money with them due to strict transfer limits. China is shedding its parasite class, and the leeches are migrating to their natural environment.
China is shedding its parasite class, and the leeches are migrating to their natural environment.
unfortunately; it means they’re coming here
What exactly is prompting the emigration though?
I don’t believe this:
Uncertainty over China’s economic trajectory and geopolitical tensions are top of mind for many Chinese millionaires
Well, you just need to read between the lines there.
uncertainty over China’s economic trajectory
Read: uncertainty over ability to continue exploiting labors using your accumulated surplus
geopolitical tensions…
Read: closing window of opportunities to freely move your accumulated surplus elsewhere
This is just like those immigrated nobles running from liberal revolutions in the past.
Being wealthy in the US/UK/Canada is so much better than being rich in China because the marginal advantage is substantially larger
In China? You still take the train. Transit is probably still faster than driving. Your food expenses don’t scale as fast because cheap food isn’t made of garbage. You already likely own a home. You probably come from a tier 1/2 city, so traveling domestically is cheap. Your kid still has to grind for gaokao.
In the US? You fly business. You drive around in your S Class. You can bribe infinite extracurriculars for your kid to get into a top university. You basically never have to interact with anyone in the lower 90% of incomes, and you don’t need to be THAT wealthy to do so.
Realization they’re not in charge is likely the main driver I would imagine.
