
Richest 1% took 82% of new global wealth last year, report says - pmoriarty
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/worlds-richest-oxfam-billionaire-social-inequality-world-economic-forum-institute-of-economic-a8171151.html
======
jetrink
For context, to be a member of the global top one percent, you must earn
$32,000 per year[1].

1\. [https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/05061...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)

~~~
mortenjorck
Would you suppose that someone making $32,000 per year in the US has a
comparable standard of living to someone who makes $32,000 per year in a
country where laborers are paid $2 a day? If the answer is no, do you then
think a global 1st percentile of wage earnings is a useful metric, especially
when the US 1st percentile (according to your link) is an order of magnitude
higher?

~~~
natecavanaugh
I agree with you that the scales are way out of wonk for exactly those
reasons. But is there a better metric for this?

It sounds like the calculation of the 1% isn't relative, though of course the
gap between 32k and the top number is astonishing.

I think you raise a good point, but I'm not sure how we should normalize our
ideas of wealth in an equitable way internationally.

------
elmerfud
Since we're talking about global wealth this needs to be placed in to
perspective. If you're in the USA you're probably in this 1% even if you don't
feel like it. World is a big place.

[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/05061...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)

------
TheSpiceIsLife
It is hardly surprising that business owners are taking in the lions share of
gains.

Also, this:

 _Oxfam said tax avoidance by businesses and wealthy individuals is costing
developing countries and poorer regions around $170bn annually (£123bn), which
could otherwise be allocated towards public services and "used to fight
poverty"._

Is nonsense. The tax avoided, not to be confused with tax evaded -which would
be illegal- can't be used to pay for anything.

------
hemancuso
Capital appreciates faster than labor, and last year capital appreciated
dramatically. The richest 1% have most of the investable capital. No surprise
here?

------
cs702
The title unnecessarily uses inflammatory language. Stating that the richest 1
percent "took" some percent of new wealth implies thievery or malfeasance. Why
not say that they _earned_ that percent, or that most of the new wealth came
in the form of returns to capital, or other language that is less judgmental
and more descriptive?

The first paragraph is also very poorly written: "Growing inequality resulted
in 82 per cent of new global wealth going to the richest 1 per cent last
year..." Growing inequality is a _consequence_ of this, not a cause!

While extreme inequality likely is not sustainable and throughout history has
led to social upheaval (e.g., the French Revolution), the poor choice of
language in the headline and at the beginning this article really turned me
off. I stopped reading at that point.

~~~
pllbnk
English is not my native language but as far as I understand, the paragraph
after which you stopped reading, clearly stated that inequality is the
consequence by saying "Growing inequality _resulted_ in 82 per cent of new
global wealth going to the richest 1 per cent last year..." as opposed to
using the word "caused".

Why not finish reading the article after this major gripe is cleared up then?

~~~
cs702
Thanks. Your understanding is incorrect. The words "resulted in" mean _caused
something to happen_ : [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/result%20in](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/result%20in)

To specify causality in the other direction, the article should have used
words like "resulted from," "was caused by," or "was a consequence of," for
instance.

------
dfee
It’s tough. I’m probably not in that 1%, but this is how finance works. Money
begets money. I don’t really understand how you counter the ability for people
to invest without breaking the massive consumer protections that exist. Let
alone the difficulties that would arise from requiring businessss to raise
their capital (through equity or debt financing) from 1M people at $10 each,
vs 1 group at $10M. This consumerization of finance looks good at a high
level, but is impractical to execute.

So, if we want more new capital to go to the 99% - how would we do it?

~~~
satiespickles
My sense, from my own area of work, as well as in reading the news and reading
economics research, is that there isn't enough competition in the market, and
there's too many monopolies.

The problem as I see it, in the US at least, is that the solutions to these
monopolies don't fall along the lines of the "government good versus
government bad" rhetoric that tends to dominate partisan discussions. In some
areas and in some ways we need less government, maybe a lot less, and in some
areas and in someways we need more, maybe a lot more.

In some areas, to my view, there needs to be a lot less regulation, such as in
some aspects of healthcare research and service provision (e.g, licensing
laws, lots of drug regulation). Sharply reducing intellectual property laws
are another example (sharply reducing copyright duration, making patents much
more difficult to obtain, reducing terms). In other areas there might be a
need for more regulation, such as in pricing transparencies, maybe even in
applying anti-monopoly laws to some hospital and insurance groups in some
areas.

Why aren't we in the US rolling out massive municipal ISP infrastructure, for
example? This would solve multiple things at once.

I could go on and on. Basically, I see monopolies everywhere. I feel like the
government needs to take action to introduce massive amounts of competition
into the economy, whether that be through public projects or deregulation, or
both.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/craft-b...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/craft-
beer-industry/550850/) [https://slate.com/business/2018/01/a-new-theory-for-
why-amer...](https://slate.com/business/2018/01/a-new-theory-for-why-
americans-cant-get-a-raise.html)

~~~
dfee
The big challenge with infrastructure is the maintenance costs. Upon debut,
new roads are great. Likely, better than what a private company tasked with
the problem could produce (not talking about the actual construction which is,
in America, performed by private companies bidding on contracts).

However, over time, it appears that we rob the maintenance funds to service
other governmental desires - sometimes it’s just what will get the dogcatcher
re-elected. So, this virtual monopoly leads to undesirable outcomes.

I believe governmental mismanagement of resources is a valid argument against
allowing new governmental virtual monopolies. (Examples include American
outdated transportation infrastructure, the Flint Michigan water fiasco,
governmental shutdowns in federal parks upon new budget constraints, and
more).

A peculiarity that folks on the left and right fall into is that all is fine
when “my guy” is in office, but fail to see the consequences of governmental
ownership in worse times.

For private companies, at least, there is an advantage that investment
(outside of monopolies, which I’m inclined to your perspective) should match
demand.

Also just noticed the top item on HN right now is about how SpaceX can’t test
their rocket because the government Is in fiscal limbo. I’d expect that should
creates a new wave of people who are concerned about governmental mis-
management.
[https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/0...](https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/01/21/spacex-
unable-test-fire-falcon-heavy-rocket-ksc-due-government-shutdown/1052438001/)

------
sunsu
This is how compound interest works. Why does this surprise anyone?

~~~
AgentME
Surely the trend left unchecked is disturbing. On this course, what do we
expect the headlines to look like in the following decades?

------
Necromant2005
Even after info provided by @jetrink about one top percent earns more than
$32k annually. I personally would like to be top 0.01%

~~~
Necromant2005
Everyone who earns money and especially big amount of money didn’t get for
nothing. It’s hard working everyday without weekend or holidays. This is how
it works.

~~~
Necromant2005
I’m know it’s not very popular to be a republican in donkeys state. But I’m
republican! #commingout

------
RhysU
The slackers. I expect them to collect 99%.

------
askafriend
If I were to guess - the manifestation of statistics like this are how
revolutions are ignited.

~~~
nazz
What will happen when this revolution comes to exist?

~~~
jhwang5
Something like Russian Revolution

~~~
antoineMoPa
да

------
slantaclaus
Ok so just want to be the outlier here and say “boooooo”

------
duncan_bayne
... meanwhile, the number of people worldwide living in absolute poverty
continues to plummet:

[https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/End-
of...](https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/End-of-absolute-
Poverty-in-rich-countries-2.png)

~~~
charlesdm
To be fair, that is not caused by the fact the 1% is getting richer. In most
developing nations that is caused by the fact local leaders want to line their
pockets and are willing to sell out their location population for a quick
buck.

