Maths + Poverty + Wealth = Ignorance

Generali

or
We Can’t Blame a Few Rich People for Global Poverty


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/upshot/why-we-cant-blame-a-few-rich-people-for-global-poverty.html?abt=0002&abg=0&?ftcamp=crm/email/_DATEYEARFULLNUM___DATEMONTHNUM___DATEDAYNUM__/nbe/FirstFTEurope/product&_r=0

It’s a breathtaking statistic: The richest 80 people in the world own as much wealth as the poorest half of the entire planet. It’s the centerpiece of Oxfam’s latest campaign, timed to coincide with the touching down of several of those billionaires in Davos for the World Economic Forum last week.
It’s also a brilliant talking point because it gives the impression that a happy few are hogging a big chunk of the world’s resources.
But don’t be misled; this is not what it says at all. A less rhetorically gifted Oxfam staffer might have written instead that the world’s richest 80 people own around 0.7 percent of global wealth. That’s a lot, but it hardly seems staggering.
Instead, Oxfam’s sound bite reflects the fact that 3.5 billion people — most of them in the developing world — have virtually no wealth at all. A newborn baby has more wealth than the world’s poorest decile, all of whom are in debt. And none of the world’s poorest half hold more than $3,650 in assets.

The problem of inequality of wealth isn't so much that the rich have so much it's that the poor have so little. Almost everyone in the UK is in the richest 50% of the world's population as they have a positive net worth (DFW board members notwithstanding).

If you seriously want the problems of inequality of wealth to be fixed then you need to look a bit further than the 1% as to whose wealth is to be redistributed.

Or are we saying that the problem, if it is a problem, of wealth inequality only extends as far as Dover?

The political appeal of focusing public anger on the very richest handful of people is obvious. And it would be great if solving global poverty were simply a question of persuading that small handful to share. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Almost everyone in the UK is in the richest 50% of the world's population as they have a positive net worth

Something like 65% of the UK are in the global top 10% for wealth.

Total wealth of more than circa £90K (including assets, pensions, etc) is enough to be top 5%.

Total wealth of more than circa £500K (including all assets, pensions, etc) is enough to be top 1%.

A US$ millionaire is top 0.6%.

And the UK has 1% of population but 5% of wealth.

Generali

Interesting. Pretty much anyone in London who owns their house outright is in the 1%. If you're a Government worker set to retire on a pension of £25,000, that alone is enough to put you in the 1% quite comfortably.

A £15,000 a year pension and a modest house would do it too.

Babbawah

It would seem then that 90% of the population is within this 1%

Generali

Babbawah wrote: »

It would seem then that 90% of the population is within this 1%

Not really. It's that many people don't seem to appreciate what poverty is.

Pretty much everyone in the UK will be in the top 30% worldwide.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

Not really. It's that many people don't seem to appreciate what poverty is.

Pretty much everyone in the UK will be in the top 30% worldwide.

I don't suppose that you can blame people for thinking about things only relative and restricted to their personal surroundings, but it is healthy to sometimes see the bigger picture and appreciate what we really have, and value it. For example if you lose your health, it certainly makes you realise and miss what you once had, luckily my personal experience of that was only having a broken leg. Most of us are in for a rude awakening eventually, I think if we could see a glimpse of what the future holds, it would make us all make more of an effort to enjoy ourselves while we still can.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Interesting. Pretty much anyone in London who owns their house outright is in the 1%. If you're a Government worker set to retire on a pension of £25,000, that alone is enough to put you in the 1% quite comfortably.

A £15,000 a year pension and a modest house would do it too.

I have been meaning to start a thread 'we are the 1%' for the last few days in response to the Oxfam report. I suspect many of those in the developed world who rant against the 1% may actually be part of it....



*I was going to suggest anyone with an annual pension of 25k pa qualifies either final salary or via an annuity, I don't think govt employees need to be specifically mentioned.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I have been meaning to start a thread 'we are the 1%' for the last few days in response to the Oxfam report. I suspect many of those in the developed world who rant against the 1% may actually be part of it....

Almost certainly their parents will be but protesting your parents' wealth has a long and ignoble tradition.

michaels wrote: »

*I was going to suggest anyone with an annual pension of 25k pa qualifies either final salary or via an annuity, I don't think govt employees need to be specifically mentioned.

The extra value in the public sector comes from the index linking. If you retire on a DB scheme in the private sector you get a nominal amount to live off, a public sector DB scheme will give you an index linked pension. That index linking is worth a huge amount of money and probably far more than I propose in my post once risk weighting is taken into account.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Interesting. Pretty much anyone in London who owns their house outright is in the 1%. If you're a Government worker set to retire on a pension of £25,000, that alone is enough to put you in the 1% quite comfortably.

A £15,000 a year pension and a modest house would do it too.

Britain's public sector workers are the best in the world. They provide world beating service for reasonable prices.

I am unclear what benefit the Qatari royal family brings to anyone. Or our royal family to be honest.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

Almost certainly their parents will be but protesting your parents' wealth has a long and ignoble tradition.





The extra value in the public sector comes from the index linking. If you retire on a DB scheme in the private sector you get a nominal amount to live off, a public sector DB scheme will give you an index linked pension. That index linking is worth a huge amount of money and probably far more than I propose in my post once risk weighting is taken into account.

I didn't know that about the (old) private sector DB pensions, that is quite a difference (having the now CPI indexation).

ruggedtoast

Poor people might reasonably think that with great wealth comes great responsibility. That is why it is controversial when all the general public sees of rich people is them behaving like nobs, gold plating their helicopters and spending more on a bottle of fizzy white wine than a nurse makes in a year.

I don't especially think that the uk has a duty to provide some kind of unquestioning safe have haven to these displays of nobbery. Or that the threat that "they will leave" is much of a threat at all. Although this kind of opinion would seem to label me as a raging leftist nowadays.