5 ms·

62 people now own the same wealth as half the world's population, research finds

8 points by clbrook 11y ago

privong 11y ago
An article about this study received a bit of discussion a day ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10922166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10922166
- clbrook 11y ago
  Thanks. It is hard for me to grasp quite what this fact means. If it is even being measured properly or not.
evanpw 11y ago
Alternate headline: 62 people own almost 1% of global wealth. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/upshot/why-we-cant-blame-a-few-rich-people-for-global-poverty.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/upshot/why-we-cant-blame-a...
- xlayn 11y ago
  You are right, that title makes it look more alarming than yours, but in the link you provide there is a statement that still provides a similar statistic: "The world’s richest 1 percent — including the very richest — hold 48 percent of the globe’s wealth." Edit: format and form.
powertower 11y ago
If you take $1.76 trillion and distribute it to 3.6 billion people, each gets about $500.
- rimunroe 11y ago
  (which is actually a staggering amount of money in some places)
  - powertower 11y ago
    Its a LCD TV for 50% of those people. And a month's wage for another 25%. And for the last 25% it would get wiped out by relative local inflation, bad decisions, corruption, etc. And that assumes you distribute it equally, and not by the area that wealth was primarily generated from. IN which case all the people that consider this amount "staggering", get around 50 cents to $5. The point was that this is pointless, as wealth cannot be distributed, it can only be destroyed.
    - rimunroe 11y ago
      The point was that this is pointless, as wealth cannot be distributed, it can only be destroyed. I don't really know what your reasoning behind this is. I'm pretty sure we redistribute money all the time through taxes. And that assumes you distribute it equally, and not by the area that wealth was primarily generated from. IN which case all the people that consider this amount "staggering", get around 50 cents to $5. If someone were actually magically redistributing that sum of money somehow, then I'd hope they'd do the opposite of that. What you've described is the status quo, where people continue to get exploited by being rewarded comparatively little for the amount of work they do/hardship they experience.
      - powertower 11y ago
        > I don't really know what your reasoning behind this is. I'm pretty sure we redistribute money all the time through taxes. Taking "wealth" from a few and giving it to many does not create more wealth. Wealth is a concentrate of money, you can't redistribute "wealth" and make everyone "wealthy". > then I'd hope they'd do the opposite of that. What you've described is the status quo, where people continue to get exploited by being rewarded comparatively little for the amount of work they do/hardship they experience. The only way the system works is when those that provide the most value get rewarded the most. Having "hardships" in life provides zero value to the rest.
        CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
flubert 11y ago
What percentage of people have a net worth of zero? If you've got $1000 to your name, are you richer than 48% of the worlds population, by the same metric? Anyone have the data for this?

8 points by clbrook 11y ago

An article about this study received a bit of discussion a day ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10922166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10922166

clbrook 11y ago
Thanks. It is hard for me to grasp quite what this fact means. If it is even being measured properly or not.

evanpw 11y ago

Alternate headline: 62 people own almost 1% of global wealth. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/upshot/why-we-cant-blame-a-few-rich-people-for-global-poverty.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/upshot/why-we-cant-blame-a...

xlayn 11y ago
You are right, that title makes it look more alarming than yours, but in the link you provide there is a statement that still provides a similar statistic: "The world’s richest 1 percent — including the very richest — hold 48 percent of the globe’s wealth." Edit: format and form.

powertower 11y ago

If you take $1.76 trillion and distribute it to 3.6 billion people, each gets about $500.

rimunroe 11y ago
(which is actually a staggering amount of money in some places)
- powertower 11y ago
  Its a LCD TV for 50% of those people. And a month's wage for another 25%. And for the last 25% it would get wiped out by relative local inflation, bad decisions, corruption, etc. And that assumes you distribute it equally, and not by the area that wealth was primarily generated from. IN which case all the people that consider this amount "staggering", get around 50 cents to $5. The point was that this is pointless, as wealth cannot be distributed, it can only be destroyed.
  - rimunroe 11y ago
    The point was that this is pointless, as wealth cannot be distributed, it can only be destroyed. I don't really know what your reasoning behind this is. I'm pretty sure we redistribute money all the time through taxes. And that assumes you distribute it equally, and not by the area that wealth was primarily generated from. IN which case all the people that consider this amount "staggering", get around 50 cents to $5. If someone were actually magically redistributing that sum of money somehow, then I'd hope they'd do the opposite of that. What you've described is the status quo, where people continue to get exploited by being rewarded comparatively little for the amount of work they do/hardship they experience.
    - powertower 11y ago
      > I don't really know what your reasoning behind this is. I'm pretty sure we redistribute money all the time through taxes. Taking "wealth" from a few and giving it to many does not create more wealth. Wealth is a concentrate of money, you can't redistribute "wealth" and make everyone "wealthy". > then I'd hope they'd do the opposite of that. What you've described is the status quo, where people continue to get exploited by being rewarded comparatively little for the amount of work they do/hardship they experience. The only way the system works is when those that provide the most value get rewarded the most. Having "hardships" in life provides zero value to the rest.
      - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago

flubert 11y ago

What percentage of people have a net worth of zero? If you've got $1000 to your name, are you richer than 48% of the worlds population, by the same metric? Anyone have the data for this?