It is customary every year at the economic forum in Davos to discuss global economic inequality. Indeed, it is a very important issue that every civilized society should be concerned with. Unfortunately, the data presented each year shows a bias that often reaches the point of misinformation. The result is that the real parameters that should be improved in order to reduce inequality are not understood and highlighted, so no decisions are made that will improve these parameters. For example, it concentrates on whether 1% of the population increased their wealth, and no data is given on what percentage of the population has escaped the poverty line or what percentage of the remaining income strata increase or decrease their wealth over time. The non-disclosure of the real data creates conditions of dispute and raises questions about the motives of those who publish incomplete data, whatever motives usually concern politicians who want to create a political agenda and especially in 2024 when half the population of the earth will come to elect governments.
The threshold based on income that one must have to belong to the 1% is different from country to country. In the US you must earn over $500.000 a year, in the UAE $922.000, in the UK $250.000, in India $77.000.
The threshold based on wealth (ie net worth: total assets minus loans) that someone needs to have to be in the 1% is again different from country to country.
In the US one must have a fortune over $1.000.00, in Monaco $12.000.000, in the United Kingdom, France and Hong Kong over $3.500.000, in China over $1.000.000, in India $175.000, and in Kenya $20.000.
According to a US poll 33% of the "1%" identify as Republican, 41% as independent and 26% as Democrat. As a 1% occupation, health professionals outnumber other occupations in the US in Finland, Portugal, Sweden, the UK, France, and Italy. The remaining occupations concern workers in industries such as Finance, IT and in senior management positions – such as CEOs of large companies where bonuses make up an average of 1/5 of their incomes.
But what matters is that the data shows that the top 1% – is a constantly changing group at least for the US. According to US data 11% of the population will enter the 1% income group at some point in their lives for at least one year, and just under 6% will stay for two or more years. Only 0,6% percent can remain for ten years or more. According to other data, 70% of the working population in the US will spend at least one year in the top 20% of earners, and just over half will spend at least one year among the top 10% of earners.
It's also common for Americans to spend some time at the bottom of the income distribution. More than 50% of Americans will be in or near poverty for at least one year of their lives by the time they reach age 60.
If we adjust for inflation, using the consumer price index, most of the gains in wages since 1970 have been wiped out by inflation, but if we adjust for inflation using purchasing power – which assumes that if the price of a good rises too much – consumers will switch in the purchase of a more affordable good by purchasing substitute goods, shows that the purchasing power of citizens is about 25% more today than it was in 1970 – after inflation.
Another survey shows a marked slowdown in real income growth for the world's top 1%, no significant improvement in incomes around the 80%-90% group, instead there has been strong growth in the below 80% income groups.
The income groups of the top 1% or 5% or 10% of a country's incomes act as stages of conquest and reward for those who are skilled doctors, skilled professionals, skilled entrepreneurs, skilled investors, skilled CEOs of companies who often run giant corporations with a larger turnover than the budgets of many states, etc.
But the inequality in societies you create in countries that favor the oligarchic structure of the economy, where oligarchs aided by illiberal systems of government ensure that the oligarchs remain on high incomes throughout their lives and prevent others from rising to the high income groups using even illegal inside.
Inequality in societies stems from global and local cartels forcing consumers to pay huge prices for basic goods like the largest and longest running OPEC+ energy cartel Russia.
Inequality in societies comes from the exclusion of young people from the opportunity to be educated and develop their skills. Fortunately artificial intelligence will soon and cheaply channel all the world's knowledge to everyone (if the systems of government are not authoritarian), despite the terror of losing our jobs. Our jobs can only be taken by someone who learns the applications of artificial intelligence (and we won't try to learn them).
Inequality in societies comes from the exclusion of young people from financing, through cheap loans to implement their business ideas even if they do not have real estate to mortgage.
Inequality in societies comes from paleolithic ideologies about how a state develops. China just opened its borders to inflow of foreign capital to develop entrepreneurship, within 3 decades, it lifted 90% of its population out of poverty.
Inequality in societies comes from the systems of governments which accumulate wealth they do not distribute it to their citizens, but make it into military equipment and revive expansionist intentions in their neighboring states.
It is the responsibility of governments to govern in a human-centered way, so that he has the education and financial capacity to produce goods and services at affordable prices, to support his family, while respecting the planet's resources so that children can survive. their.
Will Davos inform us about the inequality created by the exclusion of citizens from equal opportunities due to cartels and illiberal or corrupt governments, and the non-promotion of entrepreneurship?
photo rawpixel.com, Image license by freepik.com
