Richest 1% to own more than rest of world, Oxfam says

[IZob]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30875633

The richest 1% of people will see their share of global wealth increase to more than 50% in 2016 at the current rate of growth.

Their wealth increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year, said the group.

Oxfam's report warns that the "explosion in inequality" is holding back the fight against global poverty.

Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International asked whether people really wanted to live in a world where the 1% own more than the rest of the people combined.

"The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast," she said in a statement on Monday ahead of the annual World Economic Forum in Davos.

Another interesting read, released much earlier: Countries with the worst income inequality

I don't think I can make this story any more controversial. The who, where and why is pretty clear. I guess I only have to ask one question: Are you voting for the right people? (if you are even allowed to vote).

[paleologos]

...Are you voting for the right policies? (if you are even allowed to vote).

That question shows very little understanding of the political situation in the mentioned countries.

The short answer, there is no political pluralism in the countries listed.
People are invited to vote between "chicken and meat" on one hand and "chicken with meat" on the other.

Mass media are owned by the same people who are reaping the fruits of inequality and in some countries they are owned by banks.

In the US, where "corporations are people" the corporations are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to support the financing of political campaigns.

In many cases a US corporation would be financing the political campaigns of politicians who are competing for the same office.

The benefit for the corporations for all the money they are dumping on the heads of politicians, besides controlling the outcome of elections, is that they get to frame the political debate, so that certain issues are not mentioned at all.

The benefit for the politicians is that even if they don't get to win the election, they neither have to spend all the money they received in donations, nor do they have to return it or even pay taxes for it (in the US)!

Try finding out how much money Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin received in support of their campaigns, how much of it they spent (in campaigning) and what they did with the rest.

A politician is in many cases a spokesperson for corporate interests and doing their part in framing the political debate has become one of the highest payed proffessions.

Democracy has effectively been whored out.

[removeduser_487563287433]

This is why it's important to question assumptions. Oxfam have said "the rich are getting richer". Okay, fair enough, this is a statement we can either go with or not based on the data. But what comes next is a hypothesis "therefore the poor are getting poorer". Well, let's look at that:



It's just not true. Globally, poverty is falling.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/growt...world-poverty/

[paleologos]

..."therefore the poor are getting poorer"...

The OP did not say that, it just spoke of a widening gap in ownership and income.
Poor people are equaly poor.
If you have nothing, how much poorer can you get?

The wealthy on the other hand are still getting wealthier because they absorb almost all of the benefits of growth.

The issue here is the lack of negotiating power in the part of the working class which renders them unable to bargain for themselves a proportionately equal piece of a growing economic pie.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The OP did not say that, it just spoke of a widening gap in ownership and income.
Poor people are equaly poor.
If you have nothing, how much poorer can you get?

The wealthy on the other hand are still getting wealthier because they absorb almost all of the benefits of growth.

Errr, no it said about income inequality, not ownership. We don't live in serfdom.

The issue here is the lack of negotiating power in the part of the working class which renders them unable to bargain for themselves a proportionately equal piece of a growing economic pie.

So why is poverty falling if the working classes aren't sharing in the growing prosperity?

[paleologos]

Errr, no it said about income inequality, not ownership. We don't live in serfdom.

If I were smoking the same stuff as you I might be seeing the world through shades similar to yours but I do believeve that people in our time don't get payed for their work what their work is inherently worth.
They get payed what they can muster by means of the negotiating power the rarity of their skills may command.
And that is only in the case of working class people.

An owner of rice fields in Greece will receive the same amount of cash for the same amount of harvested produce as an owner of equally sized rice fields in Banglandesh.
However, if the mentioned farmers are using hired farm hands to help them get the job done on time, the farm hands hired in Greece will get payed more per hour of labour that the farm hands hired in Banglandesh.
That's because, in spite of nearly 40% unemployment in Greece, the nagotiating power of labour is still far greater than that of Banglandesh.

So why is poverty falling if the working classes aren't sharing in the growing prosperity?

It's all about the way poverty is measured.
If we measure poverty in terms of revenue in the form of monetary units then poverty seems to be getting alleviated with time.
Also, if we measure poverty in terms of human development index we might see a trend towards improvement (I don't have the data).
But if we measure poverty in terms of social mobility then we see that it is much more difficult nowadays for someone who was born in the working class to elevate themselves socialy.

People in most cases, earn what they're worth. In most cases. If a private company pays someone a million or a billion, that's capitalism. Don't want capitalism, that's a whole 'nother conversation. But more people have been lifted out of poverty through capitalism than every other policy/philosophy.

I will allow Mr Warren Buffet to answer the above:

A market economy creates some lopsided payoffs to participants. The right endowment of vocal chords, anatomical structure, physical strength, or mental powers can produce enormous piles of claim checks (stocks, bonds, and other forms of capital) on future national output. Proper selection of ancestors similarly can result in lifetime supplies of such tickets upon birth. If zero real investment returns diverted a bit greater portion of the national output from such stockholders to equally worthy and hardworking citizens lacking jackpot-producing talents, it would seem unlikely to pose such an insult to an equitable world as to risk Divine Intervention.

I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil... I work in a market system that happens to reward what I do very well - disproportionately well. Mike Tyson, too. If you can knock a guy out in 10 seconds and earn $10 million for it, this world will pay a lot for that. If you can bat .360, this world will pay a lot for that. If you're a marvelous teacher, this world won't pay a lot for it. If you are a terrific nurse, this world will not pay a lot for it. Now, am I going to try to come up with some comparable worth system that somehow (re)distributes that? No, I don't think you can do that. But I do think that when you're treated enormously well by this market system, where in effect the market system showers the ability to buy goods and services on you because of some peculiar talent - maybe your adenoids are a certain way, so you can sing and everybody will pay you enormous sums to be on television or whatever -I think society has a big claim on that.

I’ve had it so good in this world, you know. The odds were fifty-to-one against me being born in the United States in 1930. I won the lottery the day I emerged from the womb by being in the United States instead of in some other country where my chances would have been way different.
Imagine there are two identical twins in the womb, both equally bright and energetic. And the genie says to them, “One of you is going to be born in the United States, and one of you is going to be born in Bangladesh. And if you wind up in Bangladesh, you will pay no taxes. What percentage of your income would you bid to be the one that is born in the United States?” It says something about the fact that society has something to do with your fate and not just your innate qualities. The people who say, “I did it all myself,” and think of themselves as Horatio Alger – believe me, they’d bid more to be in the United States than in Bangladesh. That’s the Ovarian Lottery.

[removeduser_487563287433]

If I were smoking the same stuff as you I might be seeing the world through shades similar to yours but I do believeve that people in our time don't get payed for their work what their work is inherently worth.
They get payed what they can muster by means of the negotiating power the rarity of their skills may command.
And that is only in the case of working class people.

I consider myself middle class and I too get paid according to the value of my skills in the marketplace. Is the "stuff" you refer to me smoking a metaphor for reality?

Fact is... unskilled labour can be done by anybody. And pays accordingly. Or you could just go to Australia where they need the people but hate blacks.

An owner of rice fields in Greece will receive the same amount of cash for the same amount of harvested produce as an owner of equally sized rice fields in Banglandesh.

Never heard of the CAP, then?

It's all about the way poverty is measured.
If we measure poverty in terms of revenue in the form of monetary units then poverty seems to be getting alleviated with time.

You're talking out your arse. This literally means nothing.

(I don't have the data).

Your entire post would have been improved if you just said this. I do have the data: poverty is declining globally.

[justicar5]

Errr, no it said about income inequality, not ownership. We don't live in serfdom.



So why is poverty falling if the working classes aren't sharing in the growing prosperity?

Easy, if they where sharing the minimum wage in the uk would be about £30 per hour with prices static, but the richest are doing what feudal economics says they should, robbing everyone else blind and destroying the democratic process with massive and sustained bribes and propaganda campaigns.

[Thorn777]

This is why it's important to question assumptions. Oxfam have said "the rich are getting richer". Okay, fair enough, this is a statement we can either go with or not based on the data. But what comes next is a hypothesis "therefore the poor are getting poorer". Well, let's look at that:



It's just not true. Globally, poverty is falling.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/growt...world-poverty/

Of course globally absolute poverty falls with all the outsourcing and its effects. I always thought that the end-goal for the global population is a Bulgaria/Romania style standard of living globally. Just enough to not go crazy and bathe and take care of them selves, yet making people dependent on their next pay-check, hence obedient and going wherever there is demand for them, and where the pretty girls deliver the amp-supply for the middle-management class and keep them happy with their cheap gadgets and budget-prostitution, instead of using their intellectual capacity for subversive thoughts/activities.

The question much more is, what happens with the broad middle-class based humanist society.

[Mementomoridc]

This is why it's important to question assumptions. Oxfam have said "the rich are getting richer". Okay, fair enough, this is a statement we can either go with or not based on the data. But what comes next is a hypothesis "therefore the poor are getting poorer". Well, let's look at that:



It's just not true. Globally, poverty is falling.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/growt...world-poverty/

Poverty is not what is at question here, it is distribution of wealth. The world in 1900 was in todays terms in almost absolute poverty. The world changes and things advance. But what the OP said is still true, while people in general are better off, why should 1% of people in the world having more than the rest of all people. It is also stupid to think anyone would could or even need this much cash.

[Enros]

It is also stupid to think anyone would could or even need this much cash.

so what would I do if I wanted someone to invest in my new business in your world?

[Don in the North]

Perhaps it appears to be falling because many more governments are contributing tax dollars to foreign countries, often in the form of foreign aid policies, whereby the rich elite and corporations aren't hit as hard by the taxes because they either don't pay said taxes, by shifting their funds off-shore as Fox/NewsCorp and hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporations and individuals do, and if they do, they're just not as affected by the tax-loss as people of a lower financial denominator?

There is absolutely no good reason, at all, whatsoever, that anyone in the world should earn more than $500,000 a year. It is simply overkill and greed. That is the year salary of 10 people, ten families. How many families have to suffer so a group of CEOs can enjoy $20 million a year, before bonuses?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Perhaps it appears to be falling because many more governments are contributing tax dollars to foreign countries, often in the form of foreign aid policies, whereby the rich elite and corporations aren't hit as hard by the taxes because they either don't pay said taxes, by shifting their funds off-shore as Fox/NewsCorp and hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporations and individuals do, and if they do, they're just not as affected by the tax-loss as people of a lower financial denominator?

There is absolutely no good reason, at all, whatsoever, that anyone in the world should earn more than $500,000 a year. It is simply overkill and greed. That is the year salary of 10 people, ten families. How many families have to suffer so a group of CEOs can enjoy $20 million a year, before bonuses?

Jesus, I already earn $100k give or take in a mid level position in an ad agency. Why the do you think a man's life's work should be capped?

[Don in the North]

Jesus, I already earn $100k give or take in a mid level position in an ad agency. Why the do you think a man's life's work should be capped?

As this post and the next few show me that you are clearly becoming emotional and turning this into something more heated than it should be because you possibly feel your dream of being a millionaire is threatened by my own, and other's, statements, I'll keep this short.

Congratulations on earning 100k. Do you feel that your job, sitting at a desk, entitles you to more money than those who work harder in jobs that are necessary? The world can survive without advertising. If a product needs advertising, it isn't "needed" in any true sense of the word -- given that word of mouth is the best form of publicity. We cannot survive without jobs like farming, distribution, medical and emergency services.

Are you going to imply that advertising is more important than food-producers, firemen, policemen, paramedics and nurses?


For everyone saying that a few "good" billionaires, like Bill Gates, cancel out the rest of the mob that inherited their billions then consider the fact that Bill Gates came very close to monopolisation of the market to get where he is. Still, I respect him far more than the other billionaires but do we really need compulsory switchovers of Windows every 18-24 months? It makes the industry struggle to keep up and the yearly costs prevent a lot of households from upgrading. Not to mention how many other businesses in the industry he drove out of business, or to the verge of, so he could buy them out at a lower price. I grew up reading news articles of the cut-throat business practices he engaged in, and while I have come to respect how he uses his money in his older age... It doesn't erase what he did. And what he did really pales in comparison to other billionaires' business practices.

Especially those who manage to stay rich because of corporate welfare.

Self-made billionaires are few and far between.

Someone responded to my comment on not having a reason to earn more than 500k a year... That there was no reason to work these jobs.
So if greed is the only factor for being in a high-level position, where you don't do any labor and essentially tell other people, who tell other people, what to do then what kind of job is that?

If a CEO at Costco can do his job, with great efficiency, for 500k a year then why do we assume that other CEOs cannot do the same?
If President Jose Mujica of Uruguay can earn the bare minimum salary by giving a majority of it to charities, why do we have fools like Tony Abbott earning more than 500k a year? He earns more than the President of the United States, and manages a far smaller demographic.
And very, very poorly at that. And with his discriminatory policies and ministers, that demographic is going to shrink.

Someone also commented that more people have been lifted out of poverty by capitalism than any other policy of philosophy.
I call bullcrap on that. Consider how many people have been pushed into poverty by capitalism via capitalists and you'll see a blinding contrast.

[removeduser_487563287433]

As this post and the next few show me that you are clearly becoming emotional and turning this into something more heated than it should be because you possibly feel your dream of being a millionaire is threatened by my own, and other's, statements, I'll keep this short.

Oh don't be silly. You think using a swear word equates to being emotional? Alright then, I'll leave you with that.

Congratulations on earning 100k. Do you feel that your job, sitting at a desk, entitles you to more money than those who work harder in jobs that are necessary?

Because my job may require more education. It may require more intelligence. It may require unique experience - I run digital ad campaigns internationally, not many people that can work between London, Tokyo and San Francisco in one role. So what if somebody is doing some heavy lifting? That's not hard, and it's not valuable. The question isn't why do I feel I am entitled to earn what people are willing to pay me, but why you think you are entitled to stop me?

The world can survive without advertising.

Theoretical. We don't have evidence of human civilisation without it.

If a product needs advertising, it isn't "needed" in any true sense of the word -- given that word of mouth is the best form of publicity. We cannot survive without jobs like farming, distribution, medical and emergency services.

Well, we can survive with all of those things as well as we can survive without advertising, and indeed advertising predates a few of those things by millenia. Your argument is purely emotive - it's the poor little doctor versus the evil industrialist. But again, even within these industries there's various roles. Takes an orderly in a hospital - anybody can move a stained sheet around. But a consultant in the UK will earn $300,000 or more. So it's not as if people with valuable skills aren't rewarded.

But again, the value of my industry isn't its necessity but it's demand. You're totally wrong to say that a product will simply spread naturally - Apple is a great example of that. We wouldn't have iPhones and smartphones in general would have been very different if Apple hadn't been saved by its famous advertising campaigns that allowed Macintoshes to recover against Microsoft.

But of course... if we do want to talk about necessity - GED - would you fund TWC without advertising?

Are you going to imply that advertising is more important than food-producers, firemen, policemen, paramedics and nurses?

I'm going to not bother pretending that "importance" is what defines salaries.

For everyone saying that a few "good" billionaires, like Bill Gates, cancel out the rest of the mob that inherited their billions

Top ten:

Bill Gates - self made man
Warren Buffet - self made man
Carlos Slim - self made man
Amanico Ortego - self made man
Larry Ellison - self made man
Christy Walton - daughter of Walmart founder
Charles Koch & David Koch - Koch industries dynasty

And the greatest gain last year was Mark Zuckerberg, self made man

So - yeah... you're just ignoring the data. And I don't personally see the problem in the children receiving inheritance either. Not as if the Koch's are running their 80 year old business into the ground.

then consider the fact that Bill Gates came very close to monopolisation of the market to get where he is.

Yeah how dare he be that good at it.

Still, I respect him far more than the other billionaires but do we really need compulsory switchovers of Windows every 18-24 months?

lol it's not compulsory

It makes the industry struggle to keep up and the yearly costs prevent a lot of households from upgrading. Not to mention how many other businesses in the industry he drove out of business, or to the verge of, so he could buy them out at a lower price. I grew up reading news articles of the cut-throat business practices he engaged in, and while I have come to respect how he uses his money in his older age... It doesn't erase what he did. And what he did really pales in comparison to other billionaires' business practices.

The people he bought became extremely rich himself. As GED said he (like Zuckerberg, like Google) gave his early employees shares and they're all millionaires now too.

Self-made billionaires are few and far between.

I bet you wish you bothered to look that up before talking out of your arse, huh?

So if greed is the only factor for being in a high-level position, where you don't do any labor and essentially tell other people, who tell other people, what to do then what kind of job is that?

So I look after the digital advertising in a region where 10% of humanity lives. You don't think that the decisions I have made result in my client's driving the most revenue from their marketing operations in two year's is not worth that company investing in me?

To be honest... everything you've posted has been based on no data and just a feeling of bitterness. God, just go and do something.

[Don in the North]

Oh don't be silly. You think using a swear word equates to being emotional? Alright then, I'll leave you with that.



Because my job may require more education. It may require more intelligence. It may require unique experience - I run digital ad campaigns internationally, not many people that can work between London, Tokyo and San Francisco in one role. So what if somebody is doing some heavy lifting? That's not hard, and it's not valuable. The question isn't why do I feel I am entitled to earn what people are willing to pay me, but why you think you are entitled to stop me?



Theoretical. We don't have evidence of human civilisation without it.



Well, we can survive with all of those things as well as we can survive without advertising, and indeed advertising predates a few of those things by millenia. Your argument is purely emotive - it's the poor little doctor versus the evil industrialist. But again, even within these industries there's various roles. Takes an orderly in a hospital - anybody can move a stained sheet around. But a consultant in the UK will earn $300,000 or more. So it's not as if people with valuable skills aren't rewarded.

But again, the value of my industry isn't its necessity but it's demand. You're totally wrong to say that a product will simply spread naturally - Apple is a great example of that. We wouldn't have iPhones and smartphones in general would have been very different if Apple hadn't been saved by its famous advertising campaigns that allowed Macintoshes to recover against Microsoft.

But of course... if we do want to talk about necessity - GED - would you fund TWC without advertising?



I'm going to not bother pretending that "importance" is what defines salaries.




Top ten:

Bill Gates - self made man
Warren Buffet - self made man
Carlos Slim - self made man
Amanico Ortego - self made man
Larry Ellison - self made man
Christy Walton - daughter of Walmart founder
Charles Koch & David Koch - Koch industries dynasty

And the greatest gain last year was Mark Zuckerberg, self made man

So - yeah... you're just ignoring the data. And I don't personally see the problem in the children receiving inheritance either. Not as if the Koch's are running their 80 year old business into the ground.



Yeah how dare he be that good at it.



lol it's not compulsory



The people he bought became extremely rich himself. As GED said he (like Zuckerberg, like Google) gave his early employees shares and they're all millionaires now too.




I bet you wish you bothered to look that up before talking out of your arse, huh?



So I look after the digital advertising in a region where 10% of humanity lives. You don't think that the decisions I have made result in my client's driving the most revenue from their marketing operations in two year's is not worth that company investing in me?

To be honest... everything you've posted has been based on no data and just a feeling of bitterness. God, just go and do something.

You swore at me and then insinuated that all Australians, including myself, dislike blacks. I don't like people insinuating that I am a racist. Your posting shows that you are getting emotional, and that you've split this entire response up in a way that makes it hard for me to respond and left the ending with a very vindictive statement. Very, very mature, and clearly the type of response that someone who isn't getting emotional would make.
"God, just go and do something."
This shows me that this is being escalated emotionally by you, and I will not continue engaging with someone in a mind-set like that. Calm down, take a walk. Bitterly smashing the keyboard and subtly insulting people in defensive-anger isn't helping anyone nor your point of view.

However, I find it ironic that someone who claims to be 'educated' has insinuated that he is more worth to society than firemen, distributors, food growers, police and nurses. In fact, your educated opinion of nurses is that they only 'move some stained bed-sheets around'.

If anyone can do it, why does it take years of training?
Why aren't you doing it?
Why aren't you getting paid bugger-all and saving lives at the same time? Advertising hasn't saved a single life, but given how many distractions cause accidents, and the amount of advertising on billboards and other assorted advertisement things on the side of the roads, have surely caused more than a number of accidents and deaths. These people deserve to be paid far more than those whose contribution to society is marginal, at best.

If a consultant, whose very useful and rare skill-set of saving lives earns less than a CEO, then what it that a CEO does that makes their contribution to society outweigh that of a consultant or specialist? How many lives, human or has a CEO destroyed to get himself/company where he/it is today? Does that out-weight distributing wealth to his employees? Do those trampled upon, possibly rendered homeless, get some of that cash as restitution?

How many other billionaires follow the footsteps of these 'self-made men'? Few and far between. They are rancid capitalists who have inherited their money or obtained it through other means, and don't think twice about stepping on someone else to make a few dollars. That list will always be triple, quadruple any list of 'self-made' that you can come up with.

Hopefully, you never fall ill and end up in hospital. It would really suck if one of those nurses or orderlies were members of this particular forum and were aware of how much higher you hold yourself over them.
Because money/salary defines a person's worth in your eyes and I find that attitude/outlook sickening, and I've no doubt they will too.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Carlos Slim - self made man

And made into a mutli-billionaire by virtue of having a monopoly in telecommunications of Mexico for two decades, which he acquired from the state. That's a clear cut case of becoming super rich through rent-seeking, any less subtle than that and you are a Russian oligarch.

[Derpy Hooves]

There is absolutely no good reason, at all, whatsoever, that anyone in the world should earn more than $500,000 a year.

​Then there is no reason to work a job that should pay more than $500,000 a year

[Simon Cashmere]

There is absolutely no good reason, at all, whatsoever, that anyone in the world should earn more than $500,000 a year. It is simply overkill and greed. That is the year salary of 10 people, ten families. How many families have to suffer so a group of CEOs can enjoy $20 million a year, before bonuses?

People in most cases, earn what they're worth. In most cases. If a private company pays someone a million or a billion, that's capitalism. Don't want capitalism, that's a whole 'nother conversation. But more people have been lifted out of poverty through capitalism than every other policy/philosophy.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

People in most cases, earn what they're worth. In most cases. If a private company pays someone a million or a billion, that's capitalism. Don't want capitalism, that's a whole 'nother conversation. But more people have been lifted out of poverty through capitalism than every other policy/philosophy.

I share the same faith in capitalism and I have absolutely no problem with big salaries and the higher echelons making billions upon billions when they are worth it, but the idea that the super rich are super rich because they are worth it is a myth perpetuated by right wing pundits. It occurs much more frequently that they become super rich because through intensive lobbying and bribery of the political class they bend legislation in favour of their interests and because they can get away with tax-evading and tax-avoiding schemes. Or because they are given control of a country's natural resources or because the state sanctions some monopoly of theirs thanks to their political connections. The current system resembles crony capitalism more than anything else.