Thursday, January 23, 2014
World's 85 Richest Have Same Wealth as Bottom 50 Percent
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/20/world-s-85-richesthavesamewealthasbottom50percentreport.html. Due 27 Jan 2014. What are the backend costs of having so much wealth in the hands of so few?? Mention at least 3 backend costs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The World Economic Forum (WEF), which organizes the Davos conference, warned last week that the growing gulf between the rich and the poor represents the biggest global risk in 2014." One of the backend costs of having so much wealth in the hands of so few is that the middle and low class will be deprived of their own money. Since so much money is held by the upper class, there will not be an efficient allocation of wealth throughout the world. Another backend cost is that there will be a decreasing quality of life for the lower classes. Although people state that money cannot buy happiness, it can to an extent, when it can buy one food to eat and running water. Having one million more dollars compiled onto the rest of their millions will not improve a wealthy person's quality of life by very much. Another backend cost is that when the rich are that wealthy, they can bribe congressmen and influence governmental decisions more easily than a poorer individual can. Richer people will, if they choose to do so, influence the government to pass laws that better them and make it easier for the rich to become even richer. This will detriment the lower classes even more. Congressmen in today's day and age pass laws that benefit wealthy companies because these wealthy companies, or people for that matter, help pay for congressmen's campaigns so that they can be reelected again.
ReplyDelete-Anita Pizzirani (Pizza)
Period: 1
It is really overwhelming to observe the level of income inequality not just on a national level but a global level. This is absolutely appalling to have come to the point of which we allow the this to happen, especially considering that the top 85 richest people have the same wealth a the bottom 50% of the world; that's 3.5 BILLION people. There serious backend costs to be considered when approaching a concept such as this. People will begin to think that money is power. Either people will rebel in frustration or embrace the market economy to pursue their goals. Also, this is a representation that those who make this much money are not being regulated or 'reined in' so to speak. The lack of regulation/taxation may be result in more serious income inequality. I'm hungry. lol. In addition, without some serious philanthropic efforts to better the world--especially from this wealthy bunch--there is little hope to improve the living conditions of the bottom 50% of the world. This income inequality statistic was fascinating and all, but now something must be done about it.
ReplyDeletethe world’s wealthiest 1 percent have $110 trillion in assets, 65 times the wealth of the poorest 50 percent of the world's population. The richest 85 people in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent. Inequality has emerged as a major concern in countries around the world. in my opinion if you aren't rich than its your fault, don't take the rich just cause you have no idea how to make money and make under 100 K a year. Its your fault, deal with the consequences
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is sad to admit, money controls the world, and if you crave for more than just the simple life and company of loved ones, then you better have the ca-ching to pay for the expenses.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the fact that the richest 85 people in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 50%, the widening gap between the richest and poorest in the world is quite alarming. The back end costs of such conditions have already proved to be pressing issues of income inequality. One of the many costs is the "power" that the wealthy take advantage of. With their BFF Benjamin's, they are able to pay off others to get what they want, whether it is in politics or business affairs. Another already evident back end cost is the distribution of taxes. According to Oxfam, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 countries since the 1970s. I find this to be absolutely absurd. Why should the burden of more taxes be placed on those who can barely put food on the table every night? Especially while those who can afford to own vacation homes and five Ferraris are just throwing their extra money around.Unless we want to see the world turn into a ball of chaos from the social implications sure to come, this issue needs to be better regulated and resolved with the best solution possible.
In advance of the annual conference between the world's most wealthy in Davos, Switzerland, Oxfam, an international labor and injustice organization, have stated their beliefs about the top 1% richest people in the world. They strongly believe that the gaps between rich and poor are caused by the manipulation of democracy by these wealthy people. A recent report stated that 85 people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 50% of the world. This sheer power could not be possible without some manipulation in politics and tax laws. Despite these insane numbers, the gap is still growing. This year alone, 4.9 million more people worldwide were unemployed, creating a global total of about 201.8 million. The wealthiest 1% of people own $110 trillion in assets. This is enough to pay off the American national debt over 15 times. Many have began to tackle this issue, such as the Australian Prime Minister. The main points of criticism include tax havens, financial deregulation, and anti-competitive business practices. The list of backend costs of such money in such few hands is plentiful. (1) For starters, this much money allows people to bend and push politics and bills that favor them, but hurt the middle and lower class. (2) Another is that such political inequality is making it harder for the poor to climb up in economic status while the rich have forever growing incomes. (3) A third backend cost is are impacts on youth. People will grow up in a culture where money is seen as power, and those who don't have it may resort to stealing or black market dealing. (4) Finally, politicians looking for higher incomes may accept bribes and corrupt the fragile political balance there already is today.
ReplyDeleteWith having so much wealth in hand of so few they have more control because as everyone knows that with money you have more control you have have its a sad but true fact.With as much money as the wealthiest 1% has they can push bills and things like that to favor them.Having so much money in the hands of few makes it harder for the poor because the poor have so much to clime up the economy that they will always be left behind.As this generation and next generation grows they will continue to see money as power and soon just like some of today's company will accept bribes to make their gain bigger and better than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteThe inequality of the world’s wealthiest people to the poorest has gone out of control. There are a total of 85 people that are worth nearly as much as the poorest 50% of the world’s population. The report talks about the "pernicious impact" of growing inequality that helps "the richest undermine democratic processes and drive policies that promote their interests at the expense of everyone else,”. Obama right now is trying to narrow the gap between income inequality among the rich and the poor. If this gap continues to grow in the coming years, it could pose a serious problem in the next decade to come that would affect the economies of everyone around the world. Some countries believe that the rich should pay more taxes because in some countries the rich get tax reductions which are unfair to the working poor. Also countries like Germany are also raising the minimum wage in order to maybe solve this issue for their country. The situation in the United States is getting worse, and if the inequality in the income levels between the rich and poor do not improve in the near future, we will be facing an economic catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteOne of the backend costs of having so much wealth in the hands of so few is that the middle and low class will be deprived of their money. A lot of money is within the upper class. The allocation of wealth will not be efficient throughout the world if the middle class is deprived of their money. Another backend cost is that there will be a decreasing quality of life for the lower classes. Another backend cost is that when the rich are that wealthy, they can bribe congressmen and influence governmental decisions.Poorer people don't have the same ability to do so. Richer people will influence the government to pass laws that make life easier for the rich to become even richer. The lower class will be even more deprived.
ReplyDeleteThere are a ton of backend costs to having such a skewed distribution of wealth. First of all, when so few people have so much of the wealth, the working class doesn't have enough money to support itself. When the working class lacks sufficient support, then they are unable to get the means necessary to survive. Without a working class, there won't be enough healthy people to work the jobs that keep the wealthy wealthy, and the rest of society will suffer as well because the jobs that are key to making sure society functions won't be taken. Second, the lack of income equality destroys equality of opportunity. If we can see equal opportunity as a prerequisite to competition (because there is no genuine competition on a market in which one party has an obvious advantage) then we can conclude that unequal opportunities cause the capitalist system to fail because there is no market competition. Third, when so much of the wealth is owned by so few people, less money in the hands of every day consumers means less money going into the market regularly and a healthy level of consumption is unsustainable. Money is made to circulate. Adam Smith's fundamental proposition is that capitalism is a system where all inequalities will eventually be evened out, but when money is hoarded instead of being put back into the economy is causes the system to clog up and fail. These three costs should be enough to scare people out of accepting the current system. Something needs to be done about global income inequality.
ReplyDeleteIn class we have discussed before the growing income equality that our nation faces, however reading the statistics for myself on a global is probably the most unsettling experience. Soon the people who lead our countries won't be 'leaders' but instead those with the biggest banks. The wealthiest people already find ways to beat the system , what's to stop them from taking over control. As many have mentioned already, money has already become associated with power and apparently that wont change. As income inequality continues to grow, unemployment across the world will continue to rise and it seems to be increasing at an increasing rate. Its crazy that over 200 million people are unemployed , an increase of 4.9 million in just the past year. Accompanying the increasing unemployment rate will be an increasing amount of homeless people. Without any source of income, how can people be cable to afford their homes and feed their families? I hope that soon there is a way to end all of this corruption and decrease the gap in income equality.
ReplyDeleteAs time goes on, the gap between the rich and the poor seems to be growing. Now according to the Oxfam report, the 85 richest people have about the same wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the global population. This is completely outrageous. Along with this comes some backend costs such as policies being driven that only benefit the wealthy, the world's unemployment increasing, and financial deregulation. These facts are incredible as the gap between the rich and the poor.
ReplyDeleteThe chronic gap between the incomes of the richest and poorest citizens is seen as the risk that is most likely to cause serious damage globally in the coming decade. When there are more rich people than poor people, the poor people will have no sayings whatsoever on the society. The poor people will not be able to rise financially because of the fact that the top 85% rich people have the same wealth as the bottom 50% combined. Basically, the world will be operating inefficiently overall when there is such an inequality issue. If we look at this problem economically, inefficiency does mean market failure, which is something we should expect to happen very soon.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age, money is what makes the world go round. In other words, money equals power. Having so few people with so much money (or power) is just a recipe for disaster.
ReplyDeleteThere are many backend costs associated with such economic inequality,
One such cost would be the burden place on the working class. The whole economy practically depends on the efficiency of the working class. If they lack the sufficient funds to support themselves and their families, the “working class” will dwindle and ultimately become obsolete. The whole system will collapse in on itself.
In addition, because so much of the wealth is in the hand of so few, monetary circulation and normal consumption of the people is damaging the market.
Another cost would be the “death” of the “American Dream.” This means that the idea of equal opportunity will disappear. Just as Steven mentioned, equal opportunity can be seen as a prerequisite to competition, so the lack of equal opportunities will destroy the essence of the capitalist system.
If you aren’t shaking in your seat yet, then you are either fearless or one of the top 85, either which way, you still are not safe and should be very worried about the backend costs.
It is of no surprise to me that as time progresses the rich get richer. It seems that the world has shifted to aid the richest 80 people in the world own as much as the lower 50 percent of earners in the world. One specific instance is that taxes for the wealthiest have dropped since the 1970s in at least 29 countries. This deragulation of taxes will only prove hurtful to society as a whole. The poorest members of society have little to contribute for taxes so they will either go broke from paying what they are required or will simply stop paying. It would be more fair for the rich to pay their fair share. Furthermore, as the poor get poorer, issues of fundamental necessities, such as health care, will come into question for them. If the poor have no money to spend, it will ultimately hurt the rich, as they will have no demand for their products, which would come in after the fundamentals in the scale of necessities.
ReplyDeleteOf course the richest people in the world hog all the wealth. It's only human nature, right? I bet they don't think of any of the backend costs of this. I mean, as the rich get richer, the poor have to get poorer, and as this happens, and with the poor barely even able to pay for food let alone other normal goods, the rich will suffer from the lack of people able and willing to buy their products. Not to mention the working middle class, who will suffer the most from this. With a steadily decreasing income, the middle class will slowly disappear and join the ranks of the poorest people in the world, since they were at one point, unable to support a family with the little income they made and huge income taxes they paid. Lastly, as many have mentioned in the above comments, the equal opportunity we value so highly in America will become a thing of the past. It's happening as we speak. It might not be so hard to get in to college, but if the majority of people cannot pay for it, then there won't be anything equal about the opportunity for higher education, or any other opportunities for that matter.
ReplyDeleteOxfam said in a new report on widening disparities between the rich and poor that inequality has run so out of control, that the 85 richest people on the planet are worth nearly as much as the poorest 50 percent of the world's population.... It really is mind boggling to read this article. The World Economic Forum stated that the chronic gap between the incomes of the richest and poorest citizens is seen as the risk that is most likely to cause serious damage globally in the coming decade. The least wealthy members of society already have very little income to pay their taxes with so they will stop paying taxes, leading them into lots of debt with the IRS. The final backend cost would be the insufficient circulation of money in the market.
ReplyDeleteIncome inequality has been an issue for the US for a long time, some people have been making more money than they know what to do with while others are barely scrapping by. Many issues arise when it deals with income inequality and the effect it is causing. It stated in this essay that the richest 85 people in the world's wealth is equal to that of the lowest 50% of the world's population. Many countries are trying to solve this ever growing problem such as China trying to cut down in the perks and privileges that the wealthy has while Germany is raising the minimum wage of their workers. Some back end cost to this growing inequality includes future effects it will have on the world, will it become so unequal that more money will have to be put into the system forcefully causing an inflation? This can be considered a big problem for everyone, whether it be the rich or the poor. As the rich gets more money, it only means that the poor will get poorer. Another backend cost to this is the disappearance of the middle class, will the rich someday have enough money to wipe out what is now considered the middle class? And will the people in the middle class now be considered the "poor". Finally, these rich people are getting their money from somewhere right? If the rich doesn't spend any of their money, the wealth of the lower class will go lower, meaning they won't be able to make purchase the products that makes the wealthy rich.
ReplyDeleteThe WEF warns that the growing chasm between the wealthy and the poor may represent the biggest global risk this year. There have been many policies imposed by the rich to help themselves. Such as financial deregulation, tax havens, anti-competitive practices, lower taxes on higher incomes and so on. The rich create their own ways of collecting all the cash flow. Less of the wealthy are paying taxes which leaves it up to the ones who can barely afford to. So the system is reversed to where the wealthy get off easy and the poor pay the consequences. If this continues on like this the rich will just be getting wealthier and things will not change.
ReplyDeleteBackend costs include laws made in favor of those with money since they have the power of influence, a weaker middle class giving up their wealth and making the economy weaker by not spending as much, and in some places, dictatorships where the rich rule and the poor are salves.
ReplyDeleteThe backhanded costs of having so much wealth in the hands of the few is that there are no countervailing powers. For example with health in the hands of the few there are now less to act on the powers they cant control them. Also the inequality of income starts to spread and that will lead to economy collapsing on itself. Also with wealth comes power to influence others around them including people and government. Also eventually this will lead to the wealthy being the government because of the vast amount of money they own
ReplyDeleteThe top 85 richest people have the same wealth a the bottom 50% of the world; that's 3.5 BILLION people. Inequality has emerged as a major concern in countries around the world. The back end costs of such conditions have already proved to be pressing issues of income inequality. One of the many costs is the "power" that the wealthy take advantage of. With their BFF Benjamin's, they are able to pay off others to get what they want, whether it is in politics or business affairs. Another is that such political inequality is making it harder for the poor to climb up in economic status while the rich have forever growing incomes. Finally, politicians looking for higher incomes may accept bribes and corrupt the fragile political balance there already is today.
ReplyDeleteThree back end costs of having so much wealth in so few hands includes increasing inequality of people around the world, a massive imbalance of power ( lots of money in few hands = oligarchy) and the ability to block others from gaining any significant amount of wealth of influence. These 85 can band together to control the world so easily that they probable already do. Pretty bad ass.
ReplyDeleteBesides all the inequality and unfair selfishness of the supremely wealthy, there are many backend costs to them screwing over the rest of the world’s population. Well, first of all, they’ve seemed to rig laws in their own favor and furthering the inequality they’ve created. Now the economic disparity between them and everyone else has transformed into a political inequality as well. This allows certain wealthy people to undermine the democratic process because they have so much monetary power and influential control over the economy. It’s astounding that 85 people have as much as 3.5 billion. It’s somewhat commendable that they’ve managed to achieve this morally flawed state of living. They can support and drive policies that promote their interests through their funding and influence political elections through campaign donations. While doing nothing illegal, they are subversively undoing the minute borders of plutocracy. These people can make more and more money while paying their workers very little. Because of an ill placed dependence on them, the Republicans are ruining the economy over some faith in the useless trickle-down effect. They think that we should cut taxes for the wealthy business owners because their spending would create jobs and spur the economy. Actually, this is just pointless and a waste of precious waiting time because any extra money only gets sent to CEO bonus paychecks. It’s only preventing the country from creating policies that actually help people in the Republicans’ silly hope that their thing will actually work. As these people accumulate more of the wealth, there’s less left for everyone else. In the past, the elite have succeeded in passing policies in their favor like financial deregulation, tax cuts and secrecy, anti-competitive business practice, lower tax rates on high incomes and investments, or under investments for the public. Not only do they have more than necessary, they keep taking from people who actually need finds.
ReplyDelete