The Richest 1% Now Own More Than 50% of the World’s Wealth

[Don Pedro Dinero]

There is actually a great iniquality in wealth distributions in our society today! The rich keep on getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I think we should find a way to correct this iniquality in other not to get involved in many issues related to cram in the society. I will also try to be among the world richest people before 2022.

Not at all. Poor people 100 years ago couldn’t satisfy their nutritional needs on a daily basis whereas nowadays that is not the case in most places of the world. World’s populations is constantly growing and that’s not due to starvation.

This is a very old debate and it comes down to two different views: is wealth like a cake or is it like a tree that produces fruit?

Communist-like views defend that it is like a cake so if wealthy people become wealthier it is because they are having a bigger piece of the cake. Therefore, poor people become poorer because they have a smaller piece of cake to share.

The other view defends that wealth can grow so it is possible that wealthy people become wealthier and that poor people have also more wealth to share.

I defend the second view, the first one doesn’t make sense.

[Betwrong]

Of course I heard about the information in the title, but I want to draw your attention to that 1% thing. Do you guys realize how much is that?

The world population is roughly 7.6 billion, so our 1% means that there are 76 million rich people in the world. That's a big number. I mean, where do they live? Do some of us know some of them? And what if every one of them will want have 1 Bitcoin?

[jaysabi]

The richest 1% now owns more than half of all the world’s household wealth, according to analysts at Credit Suisse. And they say inequality is only going to get worse over the coming years, with millennials having a particularly tough time.

The Swiss bank released its latest Global Wealth Report on Tuesday, together with a statement that contained the immortal phrase, “The outlook for the millionaire segment is more optimistic than for the bottom of the wealth pyramid.”

The research showed that there are increasing numbers of dollar millionaires. This is partly because the strength of the euro has created 620,000 more of them in Germany, France, Italy and Spain (conversely, depreciating currencies in the U.K. and Japan have seen 34,000 and over 300,000 people in those countries respectively lose the status).

But almost half of the new dollar millionaires are in the U.S. itself. “So far, the Trump Presidency has seen businesses flourish and employment grow, though the ongoing supportive role played by the Federal Reserve has undoubtedly played a part here as well, and wealth inequality remains a prominent issue,” said Michael O’Sullivan, CIO for International Wealth Management at Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse expects to see a 22% rise in dollar millionaires by 2022, from 36 million to 44 million. The problem is, the numbers of adults who have less than $10,000 are expected to shrink by only 4%.

The bank’s researchers see wealth inequality as largely being a result of the financial crisis— it rose across the world between 2007 and 2016, because financial assets were growing faster than non-financial assets. The top 1% started the millennium owning 45.5% of all wealth, and now they have 50.1%.

As for what’s been happening since mid-2016, Credit Suisse described a mixed picture. Non-financial wealth has been increasing “substantially,” but inequality is still rising.

“Despite higher mean wealth per adult, median wealth fell again this year in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America. Our projections for 2022 suggest more pessimistic scenarios for the immediate years ahead,” the researchers said.

“Looking at the bottom of the wealth distribution, 3.5 billion people—corresponding to 70% of all adults in the world—own less than $10,000. Those with low wealth tend to be disproportionately found among the younger age groups, who have had little chance to accumulate assets, but we find that millennials face particularly challenging circumstances compared to other generations,” they wrote.

Essentially, millennials are more likely to be unemployed or earning less, priced out of the housing market, and unable to get a pension. Baby boomers have most of the wealth and the housing, so “millennials are doing less well than their parents at the same age.”

Millennials may be better educated than earlier generations, but Credit Suisse’s researchers said they expected only a “minority of high achievers and those in high-demand sectors such as technology or finance to effectively overcome the ‘millennial disadvantage.'”

http://fortune.com/2017/11/14/credit-suisse-millionaires-millennials-inequality/

....

Here we have an interesting piece on wealth and wage inequality.

Historically wealth distribution was defined by something known as the 20/80 rule. It was a loose rule of thumb that roughly 20% of the population owned 80% of the wealth. Today that divide has increased to a point where 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. This implies that while productivity and technology are increasing the profits are increasingly being distributed disproportionately across the population.

This is an interesting point for discussion as some of the things capitalism or socialism are blamed for might be traced back to wealth and wage inequality. Its also an interesting point as real inflation could be growing faster than wages which could produce catastrophic results over the long term.

Many markets and industries across global economies could suffer as wages stagnate. This could have a negative impact across real estate and many other areas which could expect inevitable downturns leading to recession/depression.

An attempt at greater equality in terms of wealth and wages has the potential to cure many issues facing society.

Reading the article there could be a lot of misinformation and lies in it also.

The top 1% owning 50% of wealth is not mutually exclusive of the top 20% owning 80% of the wealth, so first, there's no indication that anything has changed based on these statistics because it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. It could be true that the top 20% still own 80% of the wealth, which if true negates your first point. We just need a better statistic to know if your thesis is supported or not.

I think many of the things capitalism is blamed for stem primarily from stagnating wages as a subset of wealth inequality generally. Not sure about socialism there, I don't see the connection. But I agree that many global economies suffer as wages stagnate. The economy grows larger when the middle class makes more money, because the ultra wealthy generally put less of it back into the economy when they get more.

"An attempt at greater equality in terms of wealth and wages has the potential to cure many issues facing society," agreed! We're generally seeing automation reduce employment, which increases wealth for the people who own the means of production, at the direct expense of the people who have been replaced. That is, automation enriches the wealthy at the direct expense of the working class.

[Harlot]

Well that is how it goes usually the richest 1% of the world have businesses that 99% of the world need thus making them more richer and richer by the minute. Another downside to it is that all of this businesses have a huge number of employees which they also control in terms of time and salary they often make sure that this people will be contended to what they have or people who strive more will be cut by limiting their salary. Making the rest of the 99% hard to become part of them.  Inequality is normal we cannot be all rich at the same time.

[Basmic]

Of course I heard about the information in the title, but I want to draw your attention to that 1% thing. Do you guys realize how much is that?

The world population is roughly 7.6 billion, so our 1% means that there are 76 million rich people in the world. That's a big number. I mean, where do they live? Do some of us know some of them? And what if every one of them will want have 1 Bitcoin?

The bulk of the richest people living in America. I'm sure that many of them already have bitcoins. But the fact that they are very rich does not mean that they have the available funds. Assessment of property is done on the basis of cost of the enterprises they own. At any moment they can turn into poor. If they did become rich with Fiat, why do they need bitcoin?

[Swoshinima]

That's really crazy. But it is like it is. The world is not fair to everyone, but everybody who can write something here in the forum is better off than most of the people living on earth.

[DannaWonder]

Of course I heard about the information in the title, but I want to draw your attention to that 1% thing. Do you guys realize how much is that?

The world population is roughly 7.6 billion, so our 1% means that there are 76 million rich people in the world. That's a big number. I mean, where do they live? Do some of us know some of them? And what if every one of them will want have 1 Bitcoin?

The bulk of the richest people living in America. I'm sure that many of them already have bitcoins. But the fact that they are very rich does not mean that they have the available funds. Assessment of property is done on the basis of cost of the enterprises they own. At any moment they can turn into poor. If they did become rich with Fiat, why do they need bitcoin?

If they are rich in fiat the will most likely invest in bitcoin to safeguard their wealth. No one knows if Bitcoin will really be successful but when it is then those rich people will not wait to buy the coin for $1 million, They will invest once the price is still low.

[_Dawid_]

If nobody will stop the crypto may it will change a little but who knows? For sure it will take few(or some long) years because of that whole process but it is possible in my opinion. The question is if the bitcoin is a bubble, if bitcoin has currently real value(not speculation) and if it will not change and only grow the same as grow amount of cash in the world...

[Betwrong]

Of course I heard about the information in the title, but I want to draw your attention to that 1% thing. Do you guys realize how much is that?

The world population is roughly 7.6 billion, so our 1% means that there are 76 million rich people in the world. That's a big number. I mean, where do they live? Do some of us know some of them? And what if every one of them will want have 1 Bitcoin?

The bulk of the richest people living in America. I'm sure that many of them already have bitcoins. But the fact that they are very rich does not mean that they have the available funds. Assessment of property is done on the basis of cost of the enterprises they own. At any moment they can turn into poor. If they did become rich with Fiat, why do they need bitcoin?

I'm not saying rich people will invest all their money in Bitcoin. No, far from that. As you said, if they have become rich with fiat, why invest in Bitcoin? Okay, I agree, they will stick to fiat as long as they can. But, seeing that Bitcoin is booming they might want to have 1 BTC, only one, just in case it will turn into a million USD, wouldn't hurt, right? It's not a big problem for a rich person to spend $10k in order to buy something which can potentially bring them much more. Also, I'm sure it will be cool to say "I have 1 Bitcoin" pretty soon. And many people, I'm sure too, will buy Bitcoin just solely for that purpose, namely to be able to say "I have 1 Bitcoin". But the thing is they can't have 1 Bitcoin each, because there are over 70 million of them rich people and there are only 21 million BTC max.

[jaysabi]

Of course I heard about the information in the title, but I want to draw your attention to that 1% thing. Do you guys realize how much is that?

The world population is roughly 7.6 billion, so our 1% means that there are 76 million rich people in the world. That's a big number. I mean, where do they live? Do some of us know some of them? And what if every one of them will want have 1 Bitcoin?

The bulk of the richest people living in America. I'm sure that many of them already have bitcoins. But the fact that they are very rich does not mean that they have the available funds. Assessment of property is done on the basis of cost of the enterprises they own. At any moment they can turn into poor. If they did become rich with Fiat, why do they need bitcoin?

If they are rich in fiat the will most likely invest in bitcoin to safeguard their wealth. No one knows if Bitcoin will really be successful but when it is then those rich people will not wait to buy the coin for $1 million, They will invest once the price is still low.

I see this the exact opposite way. If they are rich in fiat, it's because they don't take unnecessary risks. Nobody who is worth a billion dollars is going to "safeguard their wealth" by investing a very large portion of it in cryptocurrency. They're going to invest in businesses and other income-generating assets. Crypto is not a business and it doesn't generate income or profit, it is a commodity/asset (and a speculative one at that) and only appreciates in price when large groups of people agree it is worth more. Because this is arbitrary, it is far too risky for anyone who has a lot of traditional wealth to risk it here.

[slyfox]

The question now is.. would cryptocurrencies bring equality or inequality?

1% owe 50% of the wealth is the outcome of the fiat system where banks can create money out of nothing, lend it for interest and invest it in the stock or derivatives market. Furthermore if you work as a normal person with a normal salary the system takes a lot of taxes and fees from your work and it's nowadays very difficult to save money and the monthly income is just spent for living expenses.

I think no system can bring equality, even not communism, but crypto currencies can of course help to make the distribution of the wealth more equal like it's today. Because if we exchange our services and products using crypto currencies, there is no system that robs us with income tax and fees, at least do we have the possibility to reduce those levy immensely when using private coin and not government controlled fantasy money.

Communism is the worst system ever devised in theory it may seem like a good idea but it goes against everything we know, that is why capitalism is a superior form of economy but the issue is that we do not have true capitalism, the elites have devised a system where they are always on top.

[kateryana81]

That's really crazy. But it is like it is. The world is not fair to everyone, but everybody who can write something here in the forum is better off than most of the people living on earth.

Yes, Not everyone is living a good life even if they are doing well to everyone or has never done anything wrong to anyone. Fate is not good to all or not is always in your favor. We are unfortunately living in a world where people are not having equal division of wealth. Few families are controlling the complete wealth of the world and all other people are totally dependent on them in one way or other.

[goradyne]

I care about the poor first. The "1 billion people live on less than US$1.25 a day" is impactful.
But even more important is the solution, how do we fix this? Basic necessities, then jobs. And after that, increase wages and living standards. Basic should be done first.

[jaysabi]

I care about the poor first. The "1 billion people live on less than US$1.25 a day" is impactful.
But even more important is the solution, how do we fix this? Basic necessities, then jobs. And after that, increase wages and living standards. Basic should be done first.

The role of political stability cannot be understated as a factor leading to economic prosperity. In a lot of developing nations, an unstable and downright corrupt government really inhibits economic opportunities and economic growth. A fair society based on civil rights, property rights, and economic freedom are not easy to implement, but are the essential first step to to address economically underdeveloped areas of the world. After that, you can address jobs and standards of living, but those alone won't go far without a stable foundation to build them on.

[Kronos21]

I care about the poor first. The "1 billion people live on less than US$1.25 a day" is impactful.
But even more important is the solution, how do we fix this? Basic necessities, then jobs. And after that, increase wages and living standards. Basic should be done first.

You can't increase the number of jobs indefinitely. In 2008, we have witnessed the crisis of overproduction. If someone thinks that the problem has already decided he is wrong. You say that people live off $ 1.25 a day. But to measure the standard of living currency is not correct. Need to measure the number of products they can buy. But they can not afford to buy such as a TV. What sense to increase the number of jobs in the production of televisions?

[frowsiter]

Wow that is really crazy stuff to here. That make sense why my pocket is empty even when I'm investing more than what I afford to loose into crypto land. Lol.
Seriously 1% people owing that much wealth is too much to imagine and what are they doing with that much money nobody knows. This is complete imbalance of our healthy economy and this is also one of the reason to to create the volatility in the financial market. I beige these are the people to whom we call as whales of crypto investment as they can actually make these market capitalism and related stuff move!

It doesn't matter anyway, because there is saying called as "rich gets richer, poor gets poorer" and your post explains the thing completely here why this is so. If they start off their investment with big money then obviously they will end up earning big while poor won't even see the dreams of getting there. Everything is mixture of inequality.

[salihno71]

This is just the sad indicator how the world works. On one side you have people dying of hunger and living in utter poverty, and on the other side you have people shitting in the gold plated toilets and spending per day enough to feed several thousands from the first part of sentence on some utter nonsense.

[Ewinsane]

I care about the poor first. The "1 billion people live on less than US$1.25 a day" is impactful.
But even more important is the solution, how do we fix this? Basic necessities, then jobs. And after that, increase wages and living standards. Basic should be done first.

The role of political stability cannot be understated as a factor leading to economic prosperity. In a lot of developing nations, an unstable and downright corrupt government really inhibits economic opportunities and economic growth. A fair society based on civil rights, property rights, and economic freedom are not easy to implement, but are the essential first step to to address economically underdeveloped areas of the world. After that, you can address jobs and standards of living, but those alone won't go far without a stable foundation to build them on.

This makes sense. Actually this is a dilemma of our society, or you can say about our governments and nations. They don’t focus on the living standards of their people rather their first priority is always to get their own pockets healthy and wealthy. They don’t want to address the issues of local public. These only few percent of population, they are controlling our finances.

[gabmen]

This is just the sad indicator how the world works. On one side you have people dying of hunger and living in utter poverty, and on the other side you have people shitting in the gold plated toilets and spending per day enough to feed several thousands from the first part of sentence on some utter nonsense.

Well this is one part that we can't really do anything about. People born to that small percentage would likely die there as well. You don't see too many rich and powerful lose their wealth right? If anything they just become richer and richer

[jaysabi]

This is just the sad indicator how the world works. On one side you have people dying of hunger and living in utter poverty, and on the other side you have people shitting in the gold plated toilets and spending per day enough to feed several thousands from the first part of sentence on some utter nonsense.

Well this is one part that we can't really do anything about. People born to that small percentage would likely die there as well. You don't see too many rich and powerful lose their wealth right? If anything they just become richer and richer

There are things that can be done, like wealth redistribution. The question is whether those activities solve more problems than they cause. Socialism has a long history of requiring oppressive violence to enforce, and results in a lot of corruption as the people tasked with redistributing the wealth often don't abide by the laws they create, thereby breeding resentment. I don't believe there is any purely capitalist, free-market nation, all the richest countries have some form of socialist tendencies with redistributive policies, the question is just finding the sweet spot between what is too much to be destructive and what is too little to perpetuate suffering.