[GHung]

The combined wealth of the richest 1 percent will overtake that of the other 99 percent of people next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked, Oxfam warned today ahead of the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.

The international agency, whose executive director Winnie Byanyima will co-chair the Davos event, warned that the explosion in inequality is holding back the fight against global poverty at a time when 1 in 9 people do not have enough to eat and more than a billion people still live on less than $1.25-a-day.

Byanyima will use her position at Davos to call for urgent action to stem this rising tide of inequality, starting with a crackdown on tax dodging by corporations, and to push for progress towards a global deal on climate change.

Wealth: Having It All and Wanting More, a research paper published today by Oxfam, shows that the richest 1 percent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2014 and at this rate will be more than 50 percent in 2016. Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014.

Wealth: Having It All and Wanting More, a research paper published today by Oxfam, shows that the richest 1 percent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2014 and at this rate will be more than 50 percent in 2016. Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014.

Of the remaining 52 percent of global wealth, almost all (46 percent) is owned by the rest of the richest fifth of the world’s population. The other 80 percent share just 5.5 percent and had an average wealth of $3,851 per adult – that’s 1/700th of the average wealth of the 1 percent....

More: http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/press ... -rest-2016

So who'll buy all the stuff if this trend continues?

[vox_mundi]

The question the 1% are asking themselves is: "What to do with all the empty eaters?"

For six hours, the assembled billionaires discussed the crises facing the world. Each was allowed to speak for 15 minutes. The topics focused on education, emergency relief, government reform, the expected depth of the economic crisis and global health issues such as overpopulation and disease.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/m ... nthropists

Those not in attendance have a less egalitarian agenda.

[Pops]

Rich folks own quite a bit. In fact much of that wealth is bits, just digital bits and bytes that represent some imagined value somewhere. That wealth is the epitome of ephemeral; nanoseconds without added energy and continued economic growth.

Wealth inequality is a problem for the current system, the next one not so much.

[AndyA]

If you have more then 100k in wealth, you are in the top 8%. Most of the world is dirt poor.

Seeing as the worlds richest, and world leaders are at this summit, I don't really see much changing. If the rich wanted to share the wealth they would, obviously they don't, so why pretend otherwise?

[dolanbaker]

If you have more then 100k in wealth, you are in the top 8%. Most of the world is dirt poor.

.. and economists don't seem to understand why the global economy has stopped growing!

[phaster]

Rich folks own quite a bit. In fact much of that wealth is bits, just digital bits and bytes that represent some imagined value somewhere. That wealth is the epitome of ephemeral; nanoseconds without added energy and continued economic growth.

Wealth inequality is a problem for the current system, the next one not so much.

One thing I noticed long ago about looking at relative "wealth" chart images on google

https://www.google.com/search?q=global+ ... ource=univ

is that the data set reminds me of a "fractal" math set because the data set seems to repeat itself.

basically when I looked up where I sit on the wealth spectrum: living in a rich country (the USA), in a wealth state (CA), in a wealthy city (San Diego), having a degree from a university, owning some real estate as well as well as some stocks

I find myself being ranked at the upper end of the "global" wealth spectrum!

however within my own city, even though I might have accumulated a net worth of a million dollars, there are people in this city that have accumulated a net worth of a billion+ dollars (which is three orders of magnitude greater than me) and I see these individuals pulling away from where I am standing...

[sarcasm ON]
I want more bits!!
[sarcasm OFF]

[AndyA]

If you have more then 100k in wealth, you are in the top 8%. Most of the world is dirt poor.

.. and economists don't seem to understand why the global economy has stopped growing!

Most of the rich make their money from the poor, through rents and selling crap that can only make them poorer. Providing the poor with a good paying job is not a viable business strategy, and wages are cost to be minimised.

[davep]

Whenever the "business cycle" inherent in the debt-based money system goes through a phase of reduced money supply there is always a consolidation of wealth amongst the elite.

[Revi]

They can choke on all their wealth. It doesn't work out too well in the end for most people in their situation. They are already planning their doomsteads in New Zealand and other places. I don't think it's going to work out too well for them. They should be figuring out a way to employ a lot of people, so that they will be invested in their situation.

Maybe they should start to build a big feudal empire some place in the US. At least people would be eating, and less likely to revolt.

[vtsnowedin]

They can choke on all their wealth. It doesn't work out too well in the end for most people in their situation. They are already planning their doomsteads in New Zealand and other places. I don't think it's going to work out too well for them. They should be figuring out a way to employ a lot of people, so that they will be invested in their situation.

Maybe they should start to build a big feudal empire some place in the US. At least people would be eating, and less likely to revolt.

Walmart has 2.1 million employees,Home depot 365,000, Microsoft 93,000 Koch industries 70,000 and apple computer 34,000.

[Lore]

Close enough to the truth pstarr. Except I believe gadgets like iPhones will be useless coasters. Deactivated for simpler devices. No more mass Google adverts, Facebook friends, or iStore app purchases to drive the replaceable product market.

[phaster]

made a observation a few months ago about wealth and since then I saw something on TV that confirms 99% of the 1% need a raise...

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/news-team/cd ... -of-the-1-

[Quinny]

Video not available in my location

We don't need a raise though. We need to rise up, smash the system and take control of the means of production!

[Outcast_Searcher]

Whenever the "business cycle" inherent in the debt-based money system goes through a phase of reduced money supply there is always a consolidation of wealth amongst the elite.

The current strong trend toward wealth concentration started in the early 80's. The PC and the move toward the computer being ubiquitous started (in earnest) with IBM's PC in the early 80's.

I don't think this is purely coincidence. And what does it take to productively use computers to gain wealth from information (via a good job, investments, running a business better, seeing trends to capitalize on better, etc)? EDUCATION.

And WHO doesn't do more than mouth platitudes about meaningful improvements to the faltering US education K-12 system? Or a meaningful program to help newly unemployed (or all unemployed) people who will do acceptable academic work obtain better job skills? The politicians we elect -- and of course the electorate itself, by proxy.

I'd STRONGLY like to see a meaningful attempt to address this in the US. As a capitalist and a taxpayer who tends to lean right on financial issues but left on many social issues -- I think there is a very good chance that it would:

1). Pay for itself several times in terms of better future tax revenues and less dependency on government programs -- via a gainfully employed better skilled citizenry.
2). Help the US objectively in terms of better overall living conditions, and more importantly, show that the system is more fair by providing better opportunities for people to earn their way to success, even as technology and job requirements change.

Now, what are the chances I think this sort of thing could happen? Sadly, VERY low -- as I don't see meaningful changes in the US mentality as likely in the short to moderate term. (Throwing food stamps and endless social programs that don't solve the problem - "good" -- education and expecting a certain level of self reliance - "bad"). Facepalm

What are the chances I think the endless complaining about how "unfair" it is that educated people, availing themselves of technology, continue to create a lot more wealth relative to uneducated people (and personally become wealthier as a result) will simmer down? Very low. It's far easier to imagine a boogey man and gain votes by attacking them than to actually attempt to fix the root problem.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Video not available in my location

We don't need a raise though. We need to rise up, smash the system and take control of the means of production!

Because that worked so well in places like Russia. Where everyone became rich and happy. (NOT)

It's bound to be nice to have fantasies though.

Instead, how about something productive? (See my earlier post about the US providing people much better educations and the taxpayer paying for such an investment).

Edit -- fixed a typo.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Trouble is the REALLY wealthy, the less than 0.001% have it all figured out. They already have total control over the state, police, armed forces, essentials (food etc) production, distribution & supply. You name it, if THEY need it, they control it, already, 100%.

They also control the media, internet, radio, tv, etc.

First, I agree with you that IF there is a problem with wealth -- it is the ultra-wealthy, not the successful hard working upper middle class schmoe who manages to gain a low 7 figure net worth over a 40 year career, and pays the taxes to reflect that. (So that's the first problem -- mindless blaming the 1% and basically ignoring, as you say, the .001%)

Second, aside from the political class, I see little actual evidence that the .001% control "everything". They have the same single vote the rest of us do. They pay the highest tax rates as a group. So you're telling me that Bill Gates, who traded (buggy) software for money, and now has given a huge proportion of that money to his charity and spends his time trying to do things like cure diseases and provide better educational opportunities to the third world controls everything?

It's a great red-meat tale for the angry fast food worker, but I don't buy it. They have lots of stuff. That does NOT mean they control everything.

[Outcast_Searcher]

They can choke on all their wealth. It doesn't work out too well in the end for most people in their situation. They are already planning their doomsteads in New Zealand and other places. I don't think it's going to work out too well for them. They should be figuring out a way to employ a lot of people, so that they will be invested in their situation.

Maybe they should start to build a big feudal empire some place in the US. At least people would be eating, and less likely to revolt.

Walmart has 2.1 million employees,Home depot 365,000, Microsoft 93,000 Koch industries 70,000 and apple computer 34,000.

Shhhhhhh! You're not allowed to (rationally) point out that successful people create a lot of jobs. Especially not GOOD jobs, like many at Microsoft Apple. You see, it flies in the face of the far left "blame the successful" mode of vote buying.

And WHATEVER you do, don't point out that the better economy is now causing lots of raises for the unskilled workers at places like the mammoth Walmart, or that lots of other businesses are joining that trend.