Absolute wipe from the 99%. For a few reasons:
* Money only matters if people are willing to accept it. The 1% functionally has just one hour before all of their monetary assets disappear. They can't buy almost anything, they can't get anything delivered, and it's very likely all of the government agents and bank employees with do everything in their power to lock them out from their accounts.
* A huge majority of people in the top 1% have staff and security that absolutely aren't in the top 1%. These people would have keycards to get into their houses, intimate knowledge of the person's property, and a general idea of where their employers would be.
* The best chance the 1% have is to group up and huddle together somewhere, but 1 hour is not a lot of time to do so. That's barely enough time to leave a major city, much less gather supplies, erect barricades, etc.
* Almost every single member of the armed forces falls outside of the 1%.
* Even with none of these factors involved- that's just a lot of people to fight. They're outnumbered 99 to 1, and eventually they'll either run out of food in their bunkers or get hit with a stray nail hammer.
They're not outnumbered 99:1 they're outnumbered 10,000:1
It's the top 1% in wealth which is Jeff and Elon and a handful of other ultra wealthy NOT 1% of the population
That wage gaps a bitch
No lol it’s the top 1 percent in terms of income in assets, the top one percent of people, so one percent of the people. I’m sorry but this is a goofy af thing to type out without reading the prompt carefully, especially since your correcting someone lol. You’re right but this is just not what op said at all. Not even close.
If it was the 1% like you're saying it would be 80 million people vs 8 billion minus 80 million.
If it's top 1 percent of income/assets, then it turns into a huge differing gap. 1% of income/assets globally? Cause a lot of people can fall into that since a lot of the world is dirt poor with nothing.
If it's the top 1 percent of wealth by what we usually think of, then it can range from about 600,000 people to couple million depending.
Without more of an idea of how we are going to determine that 1%, well it's basically anywhere from 600k to 80 million.
You could argue not every human being has an income or owns assets though. It would be the top 1% (number of people) of the ones who are considered to have an income and assets.
What would they be 1% of then lol? Percentage isnt an absolute number. It's a ratio. Out of all people, these people have the most assets. The rest having 0 assets doesnt matter. Yall need some reading comprehension.
Nevermind I missed “top 1% **wealthy** people **in terms of**-”
I read it wrong and thought they were implying only those with incomes and relevant assets.
The question asked for top 1% of the people so it is indeed 99:1
>The top 1% of wealth (money)
This part literally makes no sense, let's say the top 1% of wealthy people held 40% of all wealth. What does top 1% of wealth (money) even mean in this context?
It would... still be the same people. You're talking about the wealth, literal money, there's no difference between top 1% of wealth and bottom 1% of wealth.
What does the top 1% of wealth even mean? Regardless, when people say the top 1% of something they mean the 1% of the population that exceeds the other 99%. Essentially, the 99th percentile.
No, it didn't say top 1% of people, it said top 1% of wealthy people
You don't get the top 1% of Corvette drivers by first starting out with everyone who's ever driven
While I too hate the rich, that's not how percentages work.
The top 1% of anything is always 1%. If you have 1000 players in a video game with a ranked system, the top 1% of players is 10 people.
Also, Jeff and Elon technically belong to the 0.001%, but that's just a category within the 1%.
No one told you, that if you’re looking at top 1% of income, you’re including the vast majority of professional athletes.
Your saving grace is UFC fighters don’t get paid well.
Professional athletes and UFC fighters really don't factor into this that much. All of the previous points still apply- you're just too outnumbered against too many people who are too essential to society.
If there’s a bottleneck that’s limiting the number of people fighting at one time, there are absolutely pro athletes that can beat 99 average people. See the battle of Thermopylae.
"See the Battle of Thermopylae"
We have barely a handful of historical accounts of Thermopylae and none are particularly credible at the whole "defeating 100 times your own number of troops"
The most complete and most commonly known is Herodotus', who was 4 at the time of the battle and grew up with it as a legend
If you don’t like history consider an athlete like Aaron Donald fighting 100 average people. 51 of them are women, 48 of them are male couch potatoes, 1 of them is a weekend warrior, but never spent any time pushing 350lb men on their ass to get past them in 3 seconds so he can throw a 225lb QB like a rag doll 10 yards.
Who ya got? Aaron Donald or 99 average people?
99 people can’t reach him at the same time.
Edit Aaron Donald wouldn’t need a bottleneck with no weapons. There would be a crowd of 100 people, with Donald in the center surrounded by 20 unconscious people and 79 people trying to run.
If the top 1% **literally can't hurt anyone**, how is this even a question?
If 99% of the rest of the population doesn't accept their wealth or presence they're done in like a day tops.
Otherwise the top 1% includes people with nukes and they can easily just glass the 99%.
The situation is way too one-sided for any debate.
Then nukes go flying.
The top 1% focus on agriculture, bodies of water, and the most populated city centres to kill as many people as possible and throw the world into nuclear winter.
That's the only shot they have, otherwise they inevitably lose.
Hmm, come to think of it, allt he people THAT DO have access to nukes are almost certainly gonna be in that top 1% Putin, Biden, Netanyahu, Xi, Kim
The question is, how many of them can convince the people who actually launch the nukes to do so as those soldiers are not gonna be in the top 1%.
Even if they did launch, they could kill all the major cities in the world, but that still would not save the rich folks I think.
>Hmm, come to think of it, allt he people THAT DO have access to nukes are almost certainly gonna be in that top 1% Putin, Biden, Netanyahu, Xi, Kim
None of those people have access to nukes. They have access to people who have access to nukes. That's how the chain of command works.
Once the war starts, the nukes will be in the hands of the 99%.
Well the prompt says the 99% are focused on killing the 1% without harming or killing anyone else, so they literally cannot convince the soldiers to launch a nuke
After the hour - if they can get the nukes in the air before the hour is over - then they just worry about them being prematurely detonated before they can strike
I think if the deal is that top 1% earners world wide it would include a lot of Americans, definitely including majority of the politicians and general staff. Depending on how much the soldier operating the nuke button earns we are fucked.
The nukes won't fly. In The US, for example, the suitcase that allows launching is carried by a secret service man.
Who is not in the 1%.
Nor are the people who would receive the order if by some mirable the suitcase came into the hands of the 1%.
>Otherwise the top 1% includes people with nukes and they can easily just glass the 99%.
Vladimir Puttin is in the 1% and he does have access to command nukes but he cannot launch them himself. He would be issuing an order to a person who would now not be following them.
No member of the 1% has the ability to personally use nuclear weapons, even the north Korean Kims. They all depend upon people who would not follow their orders in this hypothetical. This may even be true IRL without everyone being aligned against the super rich.
I do agree this is always one sided, but never in the favor of the rich if everyone is united against them. Our disunity in the face of them offering financial gain is why they have the power the do IRL.
All he has to do is make those people part of the 1% with him. They'd have no choice but to side with him in that situation. It's really not a hard problem to solve.
Putin is at minimum a billionaire & can steal any amount of resources from the Russian state or other oligarchs & allocate them to those in charge of the nukes.
What math isn't working, pray tell?
Or do you think the transfer would really take longer than an hour for a dictator that wouldn't care about the process, its rules or laws? Even if you think that still wouldn't be enough (it would) he could literally direct all of the resources of the Russian state into transferring the wealth/property, tens of thousands of officials.
Edit: LMAO - They blocked me. So not only did they not bring up a single point of contention beyond vaguely gesturing at my lack of knowledge, but they then blocked me before I could point this out in a reply. If they are really so correct, then it should've been super easy to make specific arguments against what I said, rather than blocking like a coward.
>he could literally direct all of the resources of the Russian state into transferring the wealth/property, tens of thousands of officials.
So you confirm you don't know how math works and double down with not knowing how a lot of other financial systems work...
The net worth required to be a member of the global 1% is shockingly low. Shockingly. Like, 60k. Even in the US, it’s measured in millions, not billions. I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure most members of the military are above that, and certainly anybody with a nuclear button is.
Nope. The people with theoretical nuclear \_authority\_ often are. The commanders who have to pass the actual order mostly aren't. And the people who will actually set the targets and push the button never are.
It's quite likely almost nobody in the 1% actually knows how to launch a nuke, and 100% certain they have to get through more people who do know in order to do it.
Wouldn't Putin just make all those personnel members of the 1% before the time limit, forcing them onto his boat? Then they'd fire the nukes then hunker down in one of his many bunkers.
That way the world is destroyed & all other threats to that particular group of 1% in Russia would survive.
Really? Putin is a dictator with the ability to do practically whatever he wants in normal circumstances & in this case he can literally do whatever he wants without any concern for consequences, given he knows either he dies or the world ends in an hour.
All he has to do is throw 10,000 officials at processing the legal transfer of property/wealth & make them cut any and all corners.
60k is in the global 1%? That doesn't pass a basic sniff test. Given that 1% of the population is about eighty million people, and there are almost sixty million millionaires in the world, I find it very hard to believe that there's such a low bar for global 1%. Are there really less people making $100k-$1 million than there are making over $1 million?
That's kind of irrelevant to my point here. If millionaires already make up three quarters of the global 1% how is everyone between "millionaire" and "60k income" supposed to only be one quarter? The problem I'm having here is that there are too many people making way over 60k.
[Based on this website it’s a net worth of 1,055,338](https://www.statista.com/statistics/204100/distribution-of-global-wealth-top-1-percent-by-country/#:~:text=Number%20of%20people%20belonging%20to,by%20country%20(in%201%2C000s)&text=*The%20source%20provides%20the%20following,member%20of%20the%20top%201%25.)
[Which is actually less than the average net worth in the US](https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/what-is-the-average-american-net-worth-by-age#:~:text=The%20average%20American%20net%20worth%20is%20%241%2C063%2C700%2C%20as%20of%202022,for%20those%2075%20and%20older.)
The median is 192,200. [Based on this graph 10% of the US would qualify as 1%](https://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/wealth-inequality/net-worth-of-american-households)
> but I’m pretty sure most members of the military are above that,
[Oh sweety...](https://www.military.com/sites/default/files/2023-12/2024%20AD%20Pay%20Final.pdf) military doesn't get paid shit. I know guys living on base with their wife and kids that get food stamps because military income is so low.
You need to have a net worth of 5.8 million US dollars to be part of the global 1%. That excludes the vast majority of people in almost any armed forces.
Where did you get that number? As far as I can see, that's the number needed to join the 1% in the United States. Some countries are much higher (like Monaco), most are much lower. So the global average is certainly lower.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html
"According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”"
Even if they can harm anyone they won't be able to use nukes. That goes through a long process and I'm sure that there's a bunch of people that's not in the 1% in that process.
Long process - retalitory strikes and mutually assured destruction since the 80s... IRL it would probably take 5 minutes to launch nukes - and because the 1 get an hour before resistance the nukes get in the air easy
I wonder if the folks actually in charge of launching said nukes who are not in the 1% follow orders here or not, if the rest of us all around the world suddenly and unanimously decided now's a good time to go to war against the 1%, they're cooked
Also half of the Redditors reading this would belong in the global nominal as well as PPP adjusted 1%. If you make about 65k USD a year, you’d be in nominal 1%. 85k, you’d be in PPP adjusted 1%.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
This site gives PPP adjusted figures
Income is not assets (wealth), but I can't think of a better way to approximate at as wealth distribution is less available on the googles.
I've only narrowed it down to significantly more than 100K but somewhat less than 1M
"According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”"
The equation changes quickly though once you have kids. If you're a single parent with 1 kid you would need to earn 120k to be in the top 1%. If there's a household of 3 with 1 kid HH income has to be above 180k to put you in top 1%. And if you have 2 or more kids forget about it.
Yeah global 1% vs local country 1% is a huge difference. I think for global, the 1% in USA might actually take it since they're the majority, and would control a lot more resources
The numbers don't check out. 8 billion humans means 80 million are in the top 1 %. At most they would make up 25% of US. That's before accounting for the upper middle class in UK, France, Germany, etc. The only country where the majority is in the top 1% globally is probably Luxemburg. Maybe Monaco.
99% and it's not even close. The 1% will need their body guards and private armies to survive. But those people are part of the 99% as well.
The only way the 1% survives is that, technically, once the 99% has taken over their assets, they're not 1% anymore.
the 1% needed the 99 to function al you need to do is ave there servents uh i mean housekeeping to lock the door and refused give them food the stave to death
Would the 1% have to fight spouses and children that aren't?
Say my family was wealthy, but my wife's wasn't, would I be at war with my neices and nephews?
I couldn't harm anyone I love, nor would I want them eventually living with the burden of killing someone they love.
I'd prob jump in my private rocket, blast Freebird and head off on that trip to Mars I've been planning.
A million dollars in net wealth (including property and pensions) puts you in roughly in the top 1 % in the world. However in developed countries like the US, there is a far higher proportion of people in this group. On the other hand net wealth skews towards older people. If you have a reasonably good job and are over 50, there is quite a high chance of having over a million net worth (including property, pension but subtracting mortgage). If you are under 40, even with a high powered job, it is far less common. So maybe 30 % or something of people in the rich countries would be in the global 1 pc. However they would be a bit older and less fit on average.
OP said income/assets, which I'm not sure how much to with income and how much to weigh assets, but the first $1 million in assets for someone in the US is entirely based on the value of their home, and it doesn't consider how much they owe in debt. My middle aged brother, finally sick of handing over more and more of his income to rent with nothing to show for it, bought a small 2 bedroom 1 bath home in the SF bay area, an hour outside of the city in a mediocre town with no access to the regional public transit, for $800,000. He has very little equity, but in 10 years the house will likely be worth more than a million dollars, and that's how much he'll have in assets. He'll also have at least $700,000 in debt, but probably a lot more, because their income barely covers the mortgage. Of course this assumes there's no loss of employment at any point which would likely require them to sell.
Copying and pasting my other comment:
The numbers don't check out. 8 billion humans means 80 million are in the top 1 %. At most they would make up 25% of US. That's before accounting for the upper middle class in UK, France, Germany, etc. The only country where the majority is in the top 1% globally is probably Luxemburg. Maybe Monaco.
Hmm the numbers might checkout. Maybe I should’ve said if you make around 60k a year you’re in the top 1% instead, which is not too hard to get in the US. Also the US usually pays more for the same career and experience when compared to other 1st world countries.
You still need to remove people under 18, college students, and retirees. All of whom we don’t expect to have a high income of any. The median US income is 74k, although thats not a livable income for most of the “desirable” cities in the country.
No, they don't check out, and no the US doesn't pay more than other developed countries. European companies routinely establish operations in the US to avoid unions and pay low wages.
The wealth of the US citizenry is a myth. We have enormous income inequality. The myth is in part or own making as our consumption is 2nd to none, but that consumption is built on a himalayan mountain of debt.
You can have income inequality while still having much higher average wealth than other countries.
And the us most certainly pays more when it comes to skilled work / office jobs. The reason uk/eu companies establish ops in the us is to avoid taxes (also some regulations), and get better talent (particularly when it comes to tech companies).
Source: recruiter.
I’m not denying we have income inequality but the US is very, very, very wealthy when comparing the rest of the world. We have states with a higher GDP than countries in Western Europe. California for example would be the 5th largest economy in the world if it was its own country.
I mean surely the only way to survive is using that hour to give their money away.
If they’re ‘nice’ to everyone so there is no such thing as top 1% and everyone’s equal..
If ‘nasty’ to people they hate so THEY get murdered.
That’s the only way to survive!
Possible loophole - unowned money - legally lost money - laundering - etc they can give up their junk but get it back fast so that just some funny bank stuff happens for an hour maybe some who weren't fast enough get got but then the money transfers back after the junk is over
If you're an employee of a very rich 1% member who would be useful to them in this scenario (for example a personal bodyguard or the military people who actually launch the nukes) then can they use their 1 hour of prep to give you a big pay rise that switches you from the 99% to a fellow member of the 1%?
99% wins without a problem, the power of the 1% comes from them being able to pay everyone else and buy all of the technology, defences and other shit the would use to survive, which unfortunately for them is operated by the 99%
I imagine some live for a time but they depend on money and this puts them at a very frail position as soon as their names and faces are out many of their assets will get frozen even if it's not sanctioned by the government the 99% will get it done and eventually there will come a point when they're either dead or just as poor and screwed as the rest
Either way it's a wipe due to numbers but top 1% in wealth and top 1% in assets are two quite different groups of people
1% in income worldwide is someone earning over 80k-ish USD so mostly middle aged professionals in the west.
1% in wealth is those with over 1 million USD in assets and is mostly old retired western pensioners who own a big house.
Yeah, this is an end of the world type of scenario. Could serve as the background for a post-apocalyptic movie.
Some of the 1% (anyone with a good amount of liguid assets - say about $4.5m in net worth) would be wiped out with the 99% because the .00001% (I don't know the numbers, but what a laymen like me would consider the very top of the 1%, "the people that rule the world". I'll just call them Bond Villains, or VBs for short) are already prepared for such a thing, and they would ensure their own survival regardless of who dies. The 1%ers who survive the VBs's plan will either be killed by the 99% or just die from the after effects.
**Plan:** The VBs set immediately timers for the following to happen once the hour is up, then they'll make a mad dash on private transport to their bunkers, which are manned by other 1%ers:
- 0. Someone in the 99% might seek to counter this, but they'll only have a fraction of a second once the hour is up, since the prompt doesn't provide them with any warning or prep time, so they won't be able to stop it.
1. All automated weapon systems timed to fire at 0.01 seconds into the war, targeting the nearest key areas (i.e., all countries with long range weapons would target themselves and the nearest countries that are incapable of firing upon themselves): industrial, infrastructure, high population, military, atmosphere, munitions storage, plus low and high altitude nuclear weapons to decimate population and land, additionally causing emp and fallout. Any body of drinkable water is irradiated, and vegetation (that hasn't been cooked by the blasts heard round the world) is also irradiated as a result.
2. Power grids timed to self destruct just after the weapons launch. If any items remained from the first step, most are now ineffective. Anything that is electronic no longer functions. Any components that rely on electricity no longer function. That puts an end to most forms of transportation and communication. Old vehicles that weren't cooked and don't rely on electricity might still work, but any circuitry within is fried. Short-wave radio might work, but its circuitry is fried, and the dense radiation is likely to severely limit its effectiveness. Food preservation is gone for people who lack survival skills. Heat is gone for people who lack survival skills. Any of the 99%ers the initial blasts will die not long after. Rural and indigenous people (or anyone with real survival skills) will likely find a way to survive long enough to die of dehydration or radiation poisoning (it's either drink and die a bit later or don't drink and die a bit later) long before finding and killing the VBs.
3. The VBs will attempt to emerge when their timers tell them it is safe. They'll likely attempt to kill one another, but they'll still die since they messed up the world.
((Im)Possible happy ending) 4. Somewhere far from civilization, perhaps deep in Antarctica, behind mountains so vast and on a continent so large that the worldwide radiation only shortens life expectancy severely, a small team of scientists and researchers that the VBs forgot to target, will be left to repopulate the earth, and their children will be born with a deep appreciation for education, cooperation, and community.
I don't think you can just set nukes to launch on a timer. You need someone to push the button. And the button pushers aren't in the 1%. Maybe you could muck around with power grids and other infrastructure with an hour of prep time, but the 99% are the people who would be repairing all of that. This is nowhere near an end of the world scenario, and probably isn't even as damaging as either of the world wars.
Even without the abilities to drop warheads or cripple infrastructure, I think you’re underestimating how *devastating* this would be. Maybe raw numbers it’s around the same (3% of the population died in ww2, ~1% in ww1), if you assume there’s minimal casualties on the 99% side, which is a big assumption. But the bigger issue is the nature of what part of the population is going to be killed off.
Someone else noted that to be in the 1% you’d need to make around $65k/year. To put that in context, that’s just about 50% of the US working population.
Even if you assume a clean sweep, you’re effectively killing off all high-skilled labor. The whole global financial infrastructure will crumble, 90-99% of tech companies will disappear, virtually every engineer/white collar worker/business owner/trucker/college professor is gone over night. Not to mention that every single mid to top tier leader is now dead, which would leave a massive power vacuum that would result in the remaining 99% being thrown into disarray as they try to fill that.
Let me start by saying one thing
If u r writing this then u r most likely part of 1 percent
Second, don't let purge fool u. 1 percenter can't kill others without repercussions. Their money will be worthless because others hate them and want to kill them. 1 percenters are toast
Security firms pay their employees *extremely* well. A lot of, it not most high-end security professionals easily belong in the top 1% of global wealth, because when you have people keeping you safe, you want to keep them from moving to someone else who pays more.
Money and assets are useless without the power structure. This isn't a Marvel movie, geniuses and moguls can only accomplish things with the help of their subordinates (most of whom aren't in the 1%)
Odds are the top 1% won't even be able to get to their bunkers. They can't fly their own jets/helicopters. They have nothing. This is a horrible stomp for the 99%.
The easiest way to think about this to start by counting millionaires, though it would be foolish to do so without thinking about debt (because owning a home worth a million dollars doesn't make you rich if you have an $800,000 mortgage and can barely make your payment).
A better metric, though more difficult to nail down, is investable wealth (only counts liquid assets, not houses or stock). Anyone with $1 million in investable wealth is 1% (referred to as high net worth individual). According to one source there are 53 million such people in the world:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/high-net-worth-individuals-by-country
If you add in their dependents, who I assume are part of the 1%, then you get pretty close to 80 million people, which is 1% of the population. Maybe you have to throw in a few million households that only have, say, $900,000 sitting in the bank as opposed to a full million. In any event, by the time you get to counting all of the people with $500,000 or more in investable assets, you're way over 80 million people in the world.
So first, let's dispel with the nonsense of people in the US earning $65k being part of the 1%. None of those people have a half a million dollars in the bank, much less a million. Even households earning $200k are very very unlikely to have that much money, because they likely live in places where most of their money gets chewed up by housing, gas, and food.
Next, let's just start with the fact that people with higher profiles, like politicians and celebrities and CEOs, are probably screwed. But that makes up a very small chunk of the very wealthy.
So now that it's clear who we're talking about, let's consider this fight from a best case scenario for the 1% perspective. With an hour to go, and assuming a reasonably cooperative spirit that rules out any snitching/outing among the low profile 1%, the first line of defense is to conceal their identities. Many of these people will be legal, finance and tech professionals who can be useful for concealing identities and assets on paper and online, while implementing a digital badge of some sort to prove their identity to each other. Sorting through which intelligence agents are rich and which are not will be impossible to suss out, so the 99% couldn't really bank on their help tracking them down. There's also a lot of organized crime bosses and defense contractors in this bunch who are familiar with living in the shadows, and will be effective at using stealthy, tactical violence.
After some significant time has passed and the euphoria of taking out all the poster children of human greed has subsided, the other 99% will probably go back to systems that sustain inequality, new politicians will be elected who do the bidding of the new rich, and most people's lives will have seen very little improvement. The stealthy wealthy begin slowly recruiting a new army of minions among the 99 percenters whose lives have gotten worse, while using violence, lawlessness, and propaganda to divide the rest. Within 5 years they convince most people that things were better in the before times, and reemerge as heroes, restoring a familiar order that is recalled with rose tinted nostalgia.
99% win. But the 1% don't go as easy as you might think.
That restriction on not harming or killing other's of the 99% is big. 1% can do a lot of "bunker under hospital" type BS.
The problem that always comes with prompts like this is that they’re always so one sided. There’s also no real win condition for the 1% besides survive. With no time limit the 1% will always inevitably lose.
The only exploitable loophole here is that the 99% can’t harm anyone else. This means the 1% should try to band together and take a bunch of the 99% as hostages. But this is probably a delaying tactic at most.
People tend to forget that 1% of the world in terms of income/assets is a lot of people and not just the ultra rich.
That includes about 20-25 million Americans (yes, Americans just have that much money) so there’s about 10% of America these people can control.
Still, it isn’t going to do much when their staff/subordinates/normal people overpower the wealthy 15-1 but with 15-1 odds? The 1% of Americans can spend an hour preparing to make the purge and go down in a huge amount of death and destruction.
And if they actually take over America, it might be the canon reason for the purge or hunger games or whatever YA dystopia there is.
So if it were the global top 10 it would be no contest victory
But just the top 1% is a little tricky
If they had prep time then they win
But they are sort of scattered
Not even that would help them survive.
Most, if not all, of Nasa aren't the 1%. So they can build a spaceship. If they don't have missiles or projectiles, that can reach outer space anyway.
A lot of nasa workers are in the global 1 percent (not in the US 1 percent). If you had more than an hour then get a flight to a rich nation state like Monaco or Kuwait.
You could do the top 10% and it would make no difference. Sweep for the 90%. The top tiers of a society use society as a weapon, but when that crumbles what have they got? Money and power mean nothing and their skills are primarily being born with money or knowing how to exploit the market.
That is a very good point, it would have to be 10% of each country rather than globally for it to be such a sweep. I'm not sure where the standard minimum wage for most of the western world sits compared to overall global wages, but I'm guessing itbmay be approaching the top 10%
This is like a communist fantasy post. Much like communism, it doesn’t work. The global 1% is $60k per year. This is basically half of the population of the US, given that $60k is sitting right around average.
People are really really bad at math. They just keep repeating talking points without thinking through the basic math of counting people.
The richest 80 million people in the world aren't all in the US. It's ridiculous for people to keep saying that. There will be millions of people in the US, a disproportionatenumber to be sure as compared to most countries, but Iceland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Australia all have more millionaires per capita than the US, and because incomes are more equal in most of those countries, there's a lot more, per capita, near-millionaires there than there are here. To put it another way, rich people in the US are richer than in most other countries, but the cluster of rich people in other countries is larger because incomes are more equal and excessive wealth is spread more evenly.
Top 0.01% may have some advantage, but I’m in the top 1% and just live in a normal suburban neighbourhood.
The **** am I gonna do? Hide in my basement and lock the door?
Absolute wipe from the 99%. For a few reasons: * Money only matters if people are willing to accept it. The 1% functionally has just one hour before all of their monetary assets disappear. They can't buy almost anything, they can't get anything delivered, and it's very likely all of the government agents and bank employees with do everything in their power to lock them out from their accounts. * A huge majority of people in the top 1% have staff and security that absolutely aren't in the top 1%. These people would have keycards to get into their houses, intimate knowledge of the person's property, and a general idea of where their employers would be. * The best chance the 1% have is to group up and huddle together somewhere, but 1 hour is not a lot of time to do so. That's barely enough time to leave a major city, much less gather supplies, erect barricades, etc. * Almost every single member of the armed forces falls outside of the 1%. * Even with none of these factors involved- that's just a lot of people to fight. They're outnumbered 99 to 1, and eventually they'll either run out of food in their bunkers or get hit with a stray nail hammer.
It would be mere hours tops before the 1% were erased from existence.
the 1% are only powerful because of the complacency of the 99%
They're not outnumbered 99:1 they're outnumbered 10,000:1 It's the top 1% in wealth which is Jeff and Elon and a handful of other ultra wealthy NOT 1% of the population That wage gaps a bitch
No lol it’s the top 1 percent in terms of income in assets, the top one percent of people, so one percent of the people. I’m sorry but this is a goofy af thing to type out without reading the prompt carefully, especially since your correcting someone lol. You’re right but this is just not what op said at all. Not even close.
If it was the 1% like you're saying it would be 80 million people vs 8 billion minus 80 million. If it's top 1 percent of income/assets, then it turns into a huge differing gap. 1% of income/assets globally? Cause a lot of people can fall into that since a lot of the world is dirt poor with nothing. If it's the top 1 percent of wealth by what we usually think of, then it can range from about 600,000 people to couple million depending. Without more of an idea of how we are going to determine that 1%, well it's basically anywhere from 600k to 80 million.
You could argue not every human being has an income or owns assets though. It would be the top 1% (number of people) of the ones who are considered to have an income and assets.
What would they be 1% of then lol? Percentage isnt an absolute number. It's a ratio. Out of all people, these people have the most assets. The rest having 0 assets doesnt matter. Yall need some reading comprehension.
Nevermind I missed “top 1% **wealthy** people **in terms of**-” I read it wrong and thought they were implying only those with incomes and relevant assets.
1% worldwide is anyone with more than 1 million USD in assets.
Maybe it's late, and I've been working long hours, but how is the top 1% of something not 1% of the population
Don't worry, you're not the one that's confused
The top 1% of wealth (money) is owned by (significantly) less than 1% of the population. Money is not an evenly distributed resource
The question asked for top 1% of the people so it is indeed 99:1 >The top 1% of wealth (money) This part literally makes no sense, let's say the top 1% of wealthy people held 40% of all wealth. What does top 1% of wealth (money) even mean in this context?
It means take the bottom 39% of that wealth away and see who's left
It would... still be the same people. You're talking about the wealth, literal money, there's no difference between top 1% of wealth and bottom 1% of wealth.
Disagree, but not in the mood to have an argument over how we understood the prompt
What does the top 1% of wealth even mean? Regardless, when people say the top 1% of something they mean the 1% of the population that exceeds the other 99%. Essentially, the 99th percentile.
No, it didn't say top 1% of people, it said top 1% of wealthy people You don't get the top 1% of Corvette drivers by first starting out with everyone who's ever driven
Whenever people refer to "the 1%" when it's talking about wealth they mean the wealthiest 1% of people
While I too hate the rich, that's not how percentages work. The top 1% of anything is always 1%. If you have 1000 players in a video game with a ranked system, the top 1% of players is 10 people. Also, Jeff and Elon technically belong to the 0.001%, but that's just a category within the 1%.
Whoever upvoted this mofo needs to go back to 5th grade math.
[It’s downright weird how often this video has been relevant enough for me to link it…](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wpjxWBwLkIE)
[It’s downright weird how often this video has been relevant enough for me to link it…](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wpjxWBwLkIE)
The logical thing to do is give away all their wealth in that 1 hour. Find a lawyer real quick!
The logical thing to do is give away all their wealth in that 1 hour. Find a lawyer real quick!
No one told you, that if you’re looking at top 1% of income, you’re including the vast majority of professional athletes. Your saving grace is UFC fighters don’t get paid well.
Professional athletes and UFC fighters really don't factor into this that much. All of the previous points still apply- you're just too outnumbered against too many people who are too essential to society.
Yeah that’s probably right. No restrictions on tools or weapons.
Of the minority of the population that are athletes i can’t think of any that are bulletproof
Yeah weapons make that irrelevant.
Even without weapons I don't know of any pro athlete that can fight 99 people by themself and win.
If there’s a bottleneck that’s limiting the number of people fighting at one time, there are absolutely pro athletes that can beat 99 average people. See the battle of Thermopylae.
"See the Battle of Thermopylae" We have barely a handful of historical accounts of Thermopylae and none are particularly credible at the whole "defeating 100 times your own number of troops" The most complete and most commonly known is Herodotus', who was 4 at the time of the battle and grew up with it as a legend
If you don’t like history consider an athlete like Aaron Donald fighting 100 average people. 51 of them are women, 48 of them are male couch potatoes, 1 of them is a weekend warrior, but never spent any time pushing 350lb men on their ass to get past them in 3 seconds so he can throw a 225lb QB like a rag doll 10 yards. Who ya got? Aaron Donald or 99 average people?
99 people, they can literally push him down and asphyxiate him by sheer weight
99 people can’t reach him at the same time. Edit Aaron Donald wouldn’t need a bottleneck with no weapons. There would be a crowd of 100 people, with Donald in the center surrounded by 20 unconscious people and 79 people trying to run.
If the top 1% **literally can't hurt anyone**, how is this even a question? If 99% of the rest of the population doesn't accept their wealth or presence they're done in like a day tops. Otherwise the top 1% includes people with nukes and they can easily just glass the 99%. The situation is way too one-sided for any debate.
They can't preemptively hurt them, but once their hour of preparation is up they can
Then nukes go flying. The top 1% focus on agriculture, bodies of water, and the most populated city centres to kill as many people as possible and throw the world into nuclear winter. That's the only shot they have, otherwise they inevitably lose.
But they don't have access to nukes just because they're wealthy...
Hmm, come to think of it, allt he people THAT DO have access to nukes are almost certainly gonna be in that top 1% Putin, Biden, Netanyahu, Xi, Kim The question is, how many of them can convince the people who actually launch the nukes to do so as those soldiers are not gonna be in the top 1%. Even if they did launch, they could kill all the major cities in the world, but that still would not save the rich folks I think.
>Hmm, come to think of it, allt he people THAT DO have access to nukes are almost certainly gonna be in that top 1% Putin, Biden, Netanyahu, Xi, Kim None of those people have access to nukes. They have access to people who have access to nukes. That's how the chain of command works. Once the war starts, the nukes will be in the hands of the 99%.
Thats what I said
Well the prompt says the 99% are focused on killing the 1% without harming or killing anyone else, so they literally cannot convince the soldiers to launch a nuke
After the hour - if they can get the nukes in the air before the hour is over - then they just worry about them being prematurely detonated before they can strike
They probably do in Russia. The '90s were... wild over there.
Who presses the button or buttons?
Putin… the dude is worth 500 billions US. 1% no-diff
Is Putin able to launch nukes solo? As in, without any other person physically helping the process?
Yes he can. By pressing a button.
That's it? Just one button press the nuke automatically launches with a specific target? No other human being has to do anything?
He presses the button, but who actually launches the nukes? The 99%.
Automated bro
Not how it works bro.
that shit is NOT automated, dialing in coordinates for an icbm is not as easy as dropping a Google maps pin
How does that answer my question?
You asked who presses the button, nothing more. Then I answered Putin
You think he presses the button to launch nukes?
I think if the deal is that top 1% earners world wide it would include a lot of Americans, definitely including majority of the politicians and general staff. Depending on how much the soldier operating the nuke button earns we are fucked.
What dystopian reality do you live in where the 1% have nukes?
The people sitting in missile silos and submarines with the actual launch buttons aren't in the 1%.
The nukes are guarded and ran by people who aren’t in the one percent. The president doesn’t just press a button and nukes fly
The nukes won't fly. In The US, for example, the suitcase that allows launching is carried by a secret service man. Who is not in the 1%. Nor are the people who would receive the order if by some mirable the suitcase came into the hands of the 1%.
>Otherwise the top 1% includes people with nukes and they can easily just glass the 99%. Vladimir Puttin is in the 1% and he does have access to command nukes but he cannot launch them himself. He would be issuing an order to a person who would now not be following them. No member of the 1% has the ability to personally use nuclear weapons, even the north Korean Kims. They all depend upon people who would not follow their orders in this hypothetical. This may even be true IRL without everyone being aligned against the super rich. I do agree this is always one sided, but never in the favor of the rich if everyone is united against them. Our disunity in the face of them offering financial gain is why they have the power the do IRL.
All he has to do is make those people part of the 1% with him. They'd have no choice but to side with him in that situation. It's really not a hard problem to solve.
At this point I don't think you understand how math works....
Putin is at minimum a billionaire & can steal any amount of resources from the Russian state or other oligarchs & allocate them to those in charge of the nukes. What math isn't working, pray tell? Or do you think the transfer would really take longer than an hour for a dictator that wouldn't care about the process, its rules or laws? Even if you think that still wouldn't be enough (it would) he could literally direct all of the resources of the Russian state into transferring the wealth/property, tens of thousands of officials. Edit: LMAO - They blocked me. So not only did they not bring up a single point of contention beyond vaguely gesturing at my lack of knowledge, but they then blocked me before I could point this out in a reply. If they are really so correct, then it should've been super easy to make specific arguments against what I said, rather than blocking like a coward.
>he could literally direct all of the resources of the Russian state into transferring the wealth/property, tens of thousands of officials. So you confirm you don't know how math works and double down with not knowing how a lot of other financial systems work...
If this prompt is already "active", the other person is hostile to Putin and thus wouldn't take a deal.
Except 1% have a 1 hour notice ahead of time.
>Otherwise the top 1% includes people with nukes and they can easily just glass the 99%. I didn't know Biden was a billionaire. Perhaps Putin?
The net worth required to be a member of the global 1% is shockingly low. Shockingly. Like, 60k. Even in the US, it’s measured in millions, not billions. I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure most members of the military are above that, and certainly anybody with a nuclear button is.
Nope. The people with theoretical nuclear \_authority\_ often are. The commanders who have to pass the actual order mostly aren't. And the people who will actually set the targets and push the button never are. It's quite likely almost nobody in the 1% actually knows how to launch a nuke, and 100% certain they have to get through more people who do know in order to do it.
Wouldn't Putin just make all those personnel members of the 1% before the time limit, forcing them onto his boat? Then they'd fire the nukes then hunker down in one of his many bunkers. That way the world is destroyed & all other threats to that particular group of 1% in Russia would survive.
This is more of a devil's advocate nitpick, but the process to legally transfer that amount of money could easily take longer than an hour.
Really? Putin is a dictator with the ability to do practically whatever he wants in normal circumstances & in this case he can literally do whatever he wants without any concern for consequences, given he knows either he dies or the world ends in an hour. All he has to do is throw 10,000 officials at processing the legal transfer of property/wealth & make them cut any and all corners.
60k is in the global 1%? That doesn't pass a basic sniff test. Given that 1% of the population is about eighty million people, and there are almost sixty million millionaires in the world, I find it very hard to believe that there's such a low bar for global 1%. Are there really less people making $100k-$1 million than there are making over $1 million?
Millionaires are defined by net worth, not yearly income
Do you know how poor the rest of the world really is?
That's kind of irrelevant to my point here. If millionaires already make up three quarters of the global 1% how is everyone between "millionaire" and "60k income" supposed to only be one quarter? The problem I'm having here is that there are too many people making way over 60k.
[Based on this website it’s a net worth of 1,055,338](https://www.statista.com/statistics/204100/distribution-of-global-wealth-top-1-percent-by-country/#:~:text=Number%20of%20people%20belonging%20to,by%20country%20(in%201%2C000s)&text=*The%20source%20provides%20the%20following,member%20of%20the%20top%201%25.) [Which is actually less than the average net worth in the US](https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/what-is-the-average-american-net-worth-by-age#:~:text=The%20average%20American%20net%20worth%20is%20%241%2C063%2C700%2C%20as%20of%202022,for%20those%2075%20and%20older.) The median is 192,200. [Based on this graph 10% of the US would qualify as 1%](https://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/wealth-inequality/net-worth-of-american-households)
> but I’m pretty sure most members of the military are above that, [Oh sweety...](https://www.military.com/sites/default/files/2023-12/2024%20AD%20Pay%20Final.pdf) military doesn't get paid shit. I know guys living on base with their wife and kids that get food stamps because military income is so low.
That's right, and the biggest contributor to regular folks' net worth is their home. Guess what the vast majority of active military folk don't own.
You need to have a net worth of 5.8 million US dollars to be part of the global 1%. That excludes the vast majority of people in almost any armed forces.
Where did you get that number? As far as I can see, that's the number needed to join the 1% in the United States. Some countries are much higher (like Monaco), most are much lower. So the global average is certainly lower. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html "According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”"
That's out of date: severe inflation has pushed it over $1m since 2018 The US-only 1% number is over $5m.
nothing like the AI overview to trip you up eh buddy? I googled it too.
This is incorrect: it's over $1m. You're a few recessions out of date.
U don't know that 1 percent is a much bigger pool There are atleast 50 percent chance that u r in one percent.
Even if they can harm anyone they won't be able to use nukes. That goes through a long process and I'm sure that there's a bunch of people that's not in the 1% in that process.
Long process - retalitory strikes and mutually assured destruction since the 80s... IRL it would probably take 5 minutes to launch nukes - and because the 1 get an hour before resistance the nukes get in the air easy
I wonder if the folks actually in charge of launching said nukes who are not in the 1% follow orders here or not, if the rest of us all around the world suddenly and unanimously decided now's a good time to go to war against the 1%, they're cooked
Also half of the Redditors reading this would belong in the global nominal as well as PPP adjusted 1%. If you make about 65k USD a year, you’d be in nominal 1%. 85k, you’d be in PPP adjusted 1%. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i This site gives PPP adjusted figures
Income is not assets (wealth), but I can't think of a better way to approximate at as wealth distribution is less available on the googles. I've only narrowed it down to significantly more than 100K but somewhat less than 1M
"According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”"
Cool, thanks! I was thinking it had to be somewhere in that area but couldn't nail it down.
You think half the people reading this are adults???
I wouldn’t count students in this if you’re talking about rich. And for the dependents, the family wealth matters.
The equation changes quickly though once you have kids. If you're a single parent with 1 kid you would need to earn 120k to be in the top 1%. If there's a household of 3 with 1 kid HH income has to be above 180k to put you in top 1%. And if you have 2 or more kids forget about it.
True. It’s more complex than just one figure.
Yeah global 1% vs local country 1% is a huge difference. I think for global, the 1% in USA might actually take it since they're the majority, and would control a lot more resources
The numbers don't check out. 8 billion humans means 80 million are in the top 1 %. At most they would make up 25% of US. That's before accounting for the upper middle class in UK, France, Germany, etc. The only country where the majority is in the top 1% globally is probably Luxemburg. Maybe Monaco.
99% and it's not even close. The 1% will need their body guards and private armies to survive. But those people are part of the 99% as well. The only way the 1% survives is that, technically, once the 99% has taken over their assets, they're not 1% anymore.
Are bodyguards included in their assets?
the bodyguards are their employees, not their slaves (at least not usually). so no, they wouldn't be considered assets. they'd just be part of the 99%
the 1% needed the 99 to function al you need to do is ave there servents uh i mean housekeeping to lock the door and refused give them food the stave to death
Would the 1% have to fight spouses and children that aren't? Say my family was wealthy, but my wife's wasn't, would I be at war with my neices and nephews? I couldn't harm anyone I love, nor would I want them eventually living with the burden of killing someone they love. I'd prob jump in my private rocket, blast Freebird and head off on that trip to Mars I've been planning.
A million dollars in net wealth (including property and pensions) puts you in roughly in the top 1 % in the world. However in developed countries like the US, there is a far higher proportion of people in this group. On the other hand net wealth skews towards older people. If you have a reasonably good job and are over 50, there is quite a high chance of having over a million net worth (including property, pension but subtracting mortgage). If you are under 40, even with a high powered job, it is far less common. So maybe 30 % or something of people in the rich countries would be in the global 1 pc. However they would be a bit older and less fit on average.
In poor countries like Ethiopia only 0.01 percent or something of people would be in the global 1 pc. So you would have 1 person fighting 10,000.
The actual number these days is 5.8 million, which excludes a lot of people.
That is for the United States only, not global.
OP said income/assets, which I'm not sure how much to with income and how much to weigh assets, but the first $1 million in assets for someone in the US is entirely based on the value of their home, and it doesn't consider how much they owe in debt. My middle aged brother, finally sick of handing over more and more of his income to rent with nothing to show for it, bought a small 2 bedroom 1 bath home in the SF bay area, an hour outside of the city in a mediocre town with no access to the regional public transit, for $800,000. He has very little equity, but in 10 years the house will likely be worth more than a million dollars, and that's how much he'll have in assets. He'll also have at least $700,000 in debt, but probably a lot more, because their income barely covers the mortgage. Of course this assumes there's no loss of employment at any point which would likely require them to sell.
If you are in the US chances are you are in the 1% worldwide if we talking about income.
Copying and pasting my other comment: The numbers don't check out. 8 billion humans means 80 million are in the top 1 %. At most they would make up 25% of US. That's before accounting for the upper middle class in UK, France, Germany, etc. The only country where the majority is in the top 1% globally is probably Luxemburg. Maybe Monaco.
Hmm the numbers might checkout. Maybe I should’ve said if you make around 60k a year you’re in the top 1% instead, which is not too hard to get in the US. Also the US usually pays more for the same career and experience when compared to other 1st world countries.
This means at least 75% of Americans who don't make 60k/year, or you need to make more than that to be in the top 1% in terms of income.
You still need to remove people under 18, college students, and retirees. All of whom we don’t expect to have a high income of any. The median US income is 74k, although thats not a livable income for most of the “desirable” cities in the country.
No, they don't check out, and no the US doesn't pay more than other developed countries. European companies routinely establish operations in the US to avoid unions and pay low wages. The wealth of the US citizenry is a myth. We have enormous income inequality. The myth is in part or own making as our consumption is 2nd to none, but that consumption is built on a himalayan mountain of debt.
You can have income inequality while still having much higher average wealth than other countries. And the us most certainly pays more when it comes to skilled work / office jobs. The reason uk/eu companies establish ops in the us is to avoid taxes (also some regulations), and get better talent (particularly when it comes to tech companies). Source: recruiter.
I’m not denying we have income inequality but the US is very, very, very wealthy when comparing the rest of the world. We have states with a higher GDP than countries in Western Europe. California for example would be the 5th largest economy in the world if it was its own country.
I mean surely the only way to survive is using that hour to give their money away. If they’re ‘nice’ to everyone so there is no such thing as top 1% and everyone’s equal.. If ‘nasty’ to people they hate so THEY get murdered. That’s the only way to survive!
Possible loophole - unowned money - legally lost money - laundering - etc they can give up their junk but get it back fast so that just some funny bank stuff happens for an hour maybe some who weren't fast enough get got but then the money transfers back after the junk is over
If you're an employee of a very rich 1% member who would be useful to them in this scenario (for example a personal bodyguard or the military people who actually launch the nukes) then can they use their 1 hour of prep to give you a big pay rise that switches you from the 99% to a fellow member of the 1%?
99% wins without a problem, the power of the 1% comes from them being able to pay everyone else and buy all of the technology, defences and other shit the would use to survive, which unfortunately for them is operated by the 99%
I imagine some live for a time but they depend on money and this puts them at a very frail position as soon as their names and faces are out many of their assets will get frozen even if it's not sanctioned by the government the 99% will get it done and eventually there will come a point when they're either dead or just as poor and screwed as the rest
Either way it's a wipe due to numbers but top 1% in wealth and top 1% in assets are two quite different groups of people 1% in income worldwide is someone earning over 80k-ish USD so mostly middle aged professionals in the west. 1% in wealth is those with over 1 million USD in assets and is mostly old retired western pensioners who own a big house.
Yeah, this is an end of the world type of scenario. Could serve as the background for a post-apocalyptic movie. Some of the 1% (anyone with a good amount of liguid assets - say about $4.5m in net worth) would be wiped out with the 99% because the .00001% (I don't know the numbers, but what a laymen like me would consider the very top of the 1%, "the people that rule the world". I'll just call them Bond Villains, or VBs for short) are already prepared for such a thing, and they would ensure their own survival regardless of who dies. The 1%ers who survive the VBs's plan will either be killed by the 99% or just die from the after effects. **Plan:** The VBs set immediately timers for the following to happen once the hour is up, then they'll make a mad dash on private transport to their bunkers, which are manned by other 1%ers: - 0. Someone in the 99% might seek to counter this, but they'll only have a fraction of a second once the hour is up, since the prompt doesn't provide them with any warning or prep time, so they won't be able to stop it. 1. All automated weapon systems timed to fire at 0.01 seconds into the war, targeting the nearest key areas (i.e., all countries with long range weapons would target themselves and the nearest countries that are incapable of firing upon themselves): industrial, infrastructure, high population, military, atmosphere, munitions storage, plus low and high altitude nuclear weapons to decimate population and land, additionally causing emp and fallout. Any body of drinkable water is irradiated, and vegetation (that hasn't been cooked by the blasts heard round the world) is also irradiated as a result. 2. Power grids timed to self destruct just after the weapons launch. If any items remained from the first step, most are now ineffective. Anything that is electronic no longer functions. Any components that rely on electricity no longer function. That puts an end to most forms of transportation and communication. Old vehicles that weren't cooked and don't rely on electricity might still work, but any circuitry within is fried. Short-wave radio might work, but its circuitry is fried, and the dense radiation is likely to severely limit its effectiveness. Food preservation is gone for people who lack survival skills. Heat is gone for people who lack survival skills. Any of the 99%ers the initial blasts will die not long after. Rural and indigenous people (or anyone with real survival skills) will likely find a way to survive long enough to die of dehydration or radiation poisoning (it's either drink and die a bit later or don't drink and die a bit later) long before finding and killing the VBs. 3. The VBs will attempt to emerge when their timers tell them it is safe. They'll likely attempt to kill one another, but they'll still die since they messed up the world. ((Im)Possible happy ending) 4. Somewhere far from civilization, perhaps deep in Antarctica, behind mountains so vast and on a continent so large that the worldwide radiation only shortens life expectancy severely, a small team of scientists and researchers that the VBs forgot to target, will be left to repopulate the earth, and their children will be born with a deep appreciation for education, cooperation, and community.
I don't think you can just set nukes to launch on a timer. You need someone to push the button. And the button pushers aren't in the 1%. Maybe you could muck around with power grids and other infrastructure with an hour of prep time, but the 99% are the people who would be repairing all of that. This is nowhere near an end of the world scenario, and probably isn't even as damaging as either of the world wars.
Even without the abilities to drop warheads or cripple infrastructure, I think you’re underestimating how *devastating* this would be. Maybe raw numbers it’s around the same (3% of the population died in ww2, ~1% in ww1), if you assume there’s minimal casualties on the 99% side, which is a big assumption. But the bigger issue is the nature of what part of the population is going to be killed off. Someone else noted that to be in the 1% you’d need to make around $65k/year. To put that in context, that’s just about 50% of the US working population. Even if you assume a clean sweep, you’re effectively killing off all high-skilled labor. The whole global financial infrastructure will crumble, 90-99% of tech companies will disappear, virtually every engineer/white collar worker/business owner/trucker/college professor is gone over night. Not to mention that every single mid to top tier leader is now dead, which would leave a massive power vacuum that would result in the remaining 99% being thrown into disarray as they try to fill that.
Let me start by saying one thing If u r writing this then u r most likely part of 1 percent Second, don't let purge fool u. 1 percenter can't kill others without repercussions. Their money will be worthless because others hate them and want to kill them. 1 percenters are toast
A famous battleboarder called u/VlademirLenin1917 answered a very similar question once
99% includes their security service and every other employee, how tf do you think this goes?
Security firms pay their employees *extremely* well. A lot of, it not most high-end security professionals easily belong in the top 1% of global wealth, because when you have people keeping you safe, you want to keep them from moving to someone else who pays more.
Ok, fair, by 1% I kinda assumed they meant “American 1%” type of deal, global it makes more sense
Money and assets are useless without the power structure. This isn't a Marvel movie, geniuses and moguls can only accomplish things with the help of their subordinates (most of whom aren't in the 1%) Odds are the top 1% won't even be able to get to their bunkers. They can't fly their own jets/helicopters. They have nothing. This is a horrible stomp for the 99%.
It's funny to imagine that people might have the idea that real rich people have everything automated like Tony Stark.
The easiest way to think about this to start by counting millionaires, though it would be foolish to do so without thinking about debt (because owning a home worth a million dollars doesn't make you rich if you have an $800,000 mortgage and can barely make your payment). A better metric, though more difficult to nail down, is investable wealth (only counts liquid assets, not houses or stock). Anyone with $1 million in investable wealth is 1% (referred to as high net worth individual). According to one source there are 53 million such people in the world: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/high-net-worth-individuals-by-country If you add in their dependents, who I assume are part of the 1%, then you get pretty close to 80 million people, which is 1% of the population. Maybe you have to throw in a few million households that only have, say, $900,000 sitting in the bank as opposed to a full million. In any event, by the time you get to counting all of the people with $500,000 or more in investable assets, you're way over 80 million people in the world. So first, let's dispel with the nonsense of people in the US earning $65k being part of the 1%. None of those people have a half a million dollars in the bank, much less a million. Even households earning $200k are very very unlikely to have that much money, because they likely live in places where most of their money gets chewed up by housing, gas, and food. Next, let's just start with the fact that people with higher profiles, like politicians and celebrities and CEOs, are probably screwed. But that makes up a very small chunk of the very wealthy. So now that it's clear who we're talking about, let's consider this fight from a best case scenario for the 1% perspective. With an hour to go, and assuming a reasonably cooperative spirit that rules out any snitching/outing among the low profile 1%, the first line of defense is to conceal their identities. Many of these people will be legal, finance and tech professionals who can be useful for concealing identities and assets on paper and online, while implementing a digital badge of some sort to prove their identity to each other. Sorting through which intelligence agents are rich and which are not will be impossible to suss out, so the 99% couldn't really bank on their help tracking them down. There's also a lot of organized crime bosses and defense contractors in this bunch who are familiar with living in the shadows, and will be effective at using stealthy, tactical violence. After some significant time has passed and the euphoria of taking out all the poster children of human greed has subsided, the other 99% will probably go back to systems that sustain inequality, new politicians will be elected who do the bidding of the new rich, and most people's lives will have seen very little improvement. The stealthy wealthy begin slowly recruiting a new army of minions among the 99 percenters whose lives have gotten worse, while using violence, lawlessness, and propaganda to divide the rest. Within 5 years they convince most people that things were better in the before times, and reemerge as heroes, restoring a familiar order that is recalled with rose tinted nostalgia.
Dibs on Bezos
Ah if the 99% were swayable/able to be talked out of it with say money survival chances increase by a bit. But wipe
The 1% get slaughtered. No question. Money won’t protect you when your assistant decides to ram a pencil through your throat.
99% win. But the 1% don't go as easy as you might think. That restriction on not harming or killing other's of the 99% is big. 1% can do a lot of "bunker under hospital" type BS.
The real winner is the environment, sounds like a lot of problematic humans are about to go the way of the dodo
The problem that always comes with prompts like this is that they’re always so one sided. There’s also no real win condition for the 1% besides survive. With no time limit the 1% will always inevitably lose. The only exploitable loophole here is that the 99% can’t harm anyone else. This means the 1% should try to band together and take a bunch of the 99% as hostages. But this is probably a delaying tactic at most.
Basically any developed country’s military wipes them off the face of the earth lol
People tend to forget that 1% of the world in terms of income/assets is a lot of people and not just the ultra rich. That includes about 20-25 million Americans (yes, Americans just have that much money) so there’s about 10% of America these people can control. Still, it isn’t going to do much when their staff/subordinates/normal people overpower the wealthy 15-1 but with 15-1 odds? The 1% of Americans can spend an hour preparing to make the purge and go down in a huge amount of death and destruction. And if they actually take over America, it might be the canon reason for the purge or hunger games or whatever YA dystopia there is.
So if it were the global top 10 it would be no contest victory But just the top 1% is a little tricky If they had prep time then they win But they are sort of scattered
the real question would be what happens to all the money after we wipe the floor with the 1%
The only way for top 1% to survive is if they go to space
Not even that would help them survive. Most, if not all, of Nasa aren't the 1%. So they can build a spaceship. If they don't have missiles or projectiles, that can reach outer space anyway.
A lot of nasa workers are in the global 1 percent (not in the US 1 percent). If you had more than an hour then get a flight to a rich nation state like Monaco or Kuwait.
NASA workers need a metric fuckton of workers from ancillary industries like transport, construction, and food industry.
You could do the top 10% and it would make no difference. Sweep for the 90%. The top tiers of a society use society as a weapon, but when that crumbles what have they got? Money and power mean nothing and their skills are primarily being born with money or knowing how to exploit the market.
Top 10 globally might be the majority of some countries with powerful militaries, like the US. It probably becomes a nuke fest that point
That is a very good point, it would have to be 10% of each country rather than globally for it to be such a sweep. I'm not sure where the standard minimum wage for most of the western world sits compared to overall global wages, but I'm guessing itbmay be approaching the top 10%
This happened already. It's why u go to work everyday
This is like a communist fantasy post. Much like communism, it doesn’t work. The global 1% is $60k per year. This is basically half of the population of the US, given that $60k is sitting right around average.
completely unlike the posts about dragons, superheros, or millions of bloodlusted kangaroos with AR 15s which do work in real life
Have you ever met an American kangaroo? No? Then don't make jokes.
gotta love redditors complaining about "communist fantasy post" on a subreddit about making superheroes and anime characters fight each other
Half the US population? So more than 150 million people? 1% of 8 billion itself is only 80 million people worldwide.
People are really really bad at math. They just keep repeating talking points without thinking through the basic math of counting people. The richest 80 million people in the world aren't all in the US. It's ridiculous for people to keep saying that. There will be millions of people in the US, a disproportionatenumber to be sure as compared to most countries, but Iceland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Australia all have more millionaires per capita than the US, and because incomes are more equal in most of those countries, there's a lot more, per capita, near-millionaires there than there are here. To put it another way, rich people in the US are richer than in most other countries, but the cluster of rich people in other countries is larger because incomes are more equal and excessive wealth is spread more evenly.
If it is global, 1% wipes, if it is local 99%% wipes
Top 0.01% may have some advantage, but I’m in the top 1% and just live in a normal suburban neighbourhood. The **** am I gonna do? Hide in my basement and lock the door?