By Tom Kando
We learned
from the news recently that in 2013 the
richest 85 individuals in the world have as much wealth as the poorest
half of mankind combined. This is so
interesting that even Fox News reported
it, even though they usually hate to talk about inequality, accusing anyone who does of envy and class warfare. (See the
Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/billionaires)
Factoids:
! There
are now 1,426 billionaires in the world.
Together their worth is $5.4 trillion. That’s
roughly
one third of the US GDP. This amount is
up from $4.6 trillion a year earlier, i.e. up 17%. There are 210 new
billionaires.
! 442
of the 1,426 billionaires (=31%) are in
the US, 386 are in the Asia-Pacific region, 366
in
Europe, 129 in the Americas and 103 in the Middle East and Africa.
! I
totaled the wealth of the top 85 billionaires and came up with
$1.73 trillion. This is the
same
amount as the total wealth of the bottom
3.5 billion people on earth. In other
words, the 85
super-rich
are worth $20.3 billion per person,
whereas the bottom 3.6 billion people in
the world
are
worth $4,700 per individual. Or put another way, each of the super-rich is
worth as much as
FOUR
AND A HALF MILLION people in the world’s bottom half, a population larger than that
of
many countries.
! ! Here
are some of the better known celebrities on the list:
Rank
|
Name
|
Business
|
fortune
|
country
|
#
1
|
Carlos
Slim Helu
|
Telecom
|
73
billion
|
Mexico
|
#
2
|
Bill
Gates
|
Microsoft
|
67
billion
|
US
|
#
4
|
Warren
Buffett
|
Misc.
|
53.5
billion
|
US
|
#6, 6, 329
|
Koch
brothers
|
Misc.
|
72
billion
|
US
|
#9
|
Liliane
Bettencourt
|
L’Oreal
|
30
billion
|
France
|
#11,14,1617,346
|
Walton
family
|
Wal-Mart
|
111.3
billion
|
US
|
#
13
|
Michael
Bloomberg
|
Misc.
|
27
billion
|
US
|
#15
|
Sheldon
Adelson
|
Casinoa
|
26.5
billion
|
US
|
#23
|
Michele
Ferrero
|
Chocolates
|
20.4
billion
|
Italy
|
#
26
|
Carl
Icahn
|
Leveraged
buyouts
|
20
billion
|
US
|
#
30
|
George
Soros
|
Hedge
Funds
|
19.2
billion
|
US/
Hungary
|
# 36,37,38
|
Mars
family
|
Mars
candy
|
51
billion
|
US
|
#
66
|
Mark
Zuckerberg
(29
years old)
|
Facebook
|
13.3
billion
|
US
|
#
94
|
Charlene
Heineken
|
Heineken
beer
|
11
billion
|
Holland
|
#
131
|
Georgio
Armani
|
Fashion
|
8.5
billion
|
Italy
|
#
166
|
Ralph
Lauren
|
Fashion
|
7
billion
|
US
|
#
346
|
George
Lucas
|
Star
Wars
|
3.9
billion
|
US
|
#
423
|
Donald
Trump
|
Real
Estate
|
3.2
billion
|
US
|
#
1,175
|
Bruce
Nordstrom
|
Nordstrom
|
1.2
billion
|
US
|
Number of top 85 Billionaires by Countries:
Countries
|
Number
of billionaires
|
US
|
32
|
Russia
|
10
|
Germany
|
6
|
France
|
5
|
Hong
Kong
|
4
|
Mexico,
Brazil
|
3
each
|
Italy,
India, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia
|
2
each
|
Spain,
Sweden, India,Canada, Chile, Thailand, Australia, Nigeria, Ukraine, Japan,
Philippines, South Korea
|
1
each
|
total
|
85
|
! Sources
of wealth: The usual suspects:
Many: Electronics, Amazon, Google, Dell, Microsoft,
Facebook, Samsung, Telecom, etc.
Many:
Oil, gas, cement, petrochemicals, mining, steel, coal, metals.
Many
: Banking, hedge funds, leveraged buyouts, etc
Many:
Real Estate
Some:
Chain stores (Wal-Mart, Aldi, Trader Joe,)
Some:
Fashion, cosmetics (Prada, L’Oreal)
Some:
Beverages, candy, chocolate.
! Gender: 10 women, 75 men.
! In 2013, Amancio Ortega, Spain, gained
$19.5 billion and moved up to third
position.
Warren
Buffett gained $9.5 billion, yet dropped to #4. The biggest loser was the Brazilian Eike Batista, who lost $19.4
billion in one year, = $50 million per day, and thus fell from #7 to
#100. Not included in Forbes’ list are Royal families and dictators.
Conclusions:
Of
course, I have to insert a few socialist
comments:
! The US’ 442 billionaires make up 31% of
the total, and we only make up 4% of the
world’s
population. But this is no cause for joy. The US is also experiencing the
greatest polarization of income of ANY developed country. Furthermore, contrary
to the stereotype (“the American Dream,” “the land of opportunity,” etc.)
upward mobility is more limited in the US than
in Europe. In other words, there is more poverty and there are fewer
opportunities here than elsewhere. I doubt that THIS is the sort of “exception”
flag waving Republicans have in mind when they harp on that tired old theme
- “American exceptionalism.”
! And another thing: most people learn
exactly the wrong lesson from data such as these.
Many
folks come to the idiotic conclusion that such information shows us the
individual characteristics it takes to become successful. Hard work, talent,
dedication, etc.
In other words, most people believe
that these 85 top billionaires, and the other 1,341 too, are somehow BETTER than the rest of us - more
talented, with more work ethic, more genius of one sort or another...
Hogwash. The list teaches us nothing
at the individual level. Were you to meet these people, you would see
that they are not smarter, funnier, better looking, more intelligent, more
talented, or more anything than your average neighbor. They have more of only
one thing: Money.
Individual characteristics don’t
explain who becomes a billionaire. Only one thing explains who becomes a
billionaire: ADVANTAGE.
And where does advantage come from?
CIRCUMSTANCE. In other words: your location in time and (social) space. Put another way: LUCK.
If you happen to be born in Africa
or in the South Bronx, or in the middle of
World War Two, bad luck for you. If you are born the son of the
President of American Motors, or the governor of Michigan, you luck out. Is it
a coincidence that only ONE of the top 85 billionaires is from Africa?
This is called Sociology, folks. And
it’s correct. Get used to it. We are all billiard balls. We are volleys of
molecules shot into space, or
swarms of mosquitoes. A few end
up on top, a few at the bottom, some on
the far left, some on the far right, and most somewhere in the middle.
It’s all about probabilities, randomness, the normal distribution, (the “bell
curve”), regression towards the mean. Individual characteristics have very
little to do with success or failure. Sorry.
© Tom Kando 2014leave comment here
1 – 13 of 13
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Anonymous said...
You’re wrong. It’s not ADVANTAGE, it’s EFFORT. My father had an eighth grade education. I had no advantage. I worked through high school, college, and grad school; I did my time as a draftee during Vietnam. I worked hard over a 35 year career, managing as many as 150 professionals at a time, and retired a millionaire. I’m on the right of the bell curve through effort, not advantage. Now that I’m retired, I spend a lot of time with a charity that visits the poor ( the people on the left side of the economic bell curve), and help to pay their rent and utilities. The majority of the individuals I help are unemployed and receiving some type of public assistance. Most are in this situation because they haven’t worked hard. Even though they have all kinds of time, they don’t clean their apartments, they don’t read, they don’t TRY to improve their lot. They just watch TV and live as pigs.
Anonymous articulates the common error perfectly.
ReplyDeleteI compliment him on all the good works he claims to be doing. But regarding the poor, he is utterly wrong:
If we are going to use personal experience as evidence: My family and I grew up in a poverty which anonymous could not begin to IMAGINE.
But here is my point:
We - and other very poor people like us - wanted nothing more than the opportunity to work and to succeed through effort. Poor people like us were desperately cleaning up and trying to maintain a semblance of orderly life. Poor people like us grabbed every chance to get somewhere through hard work.
For a few of us, things turned out well. For many, they did not.
I suppose some people are lazy. But to blame poverty and failure on this is a fallacy. Do those homeless beggars freezing at street corners and sleeping in cardboard boxes CHOOSE to live that way? To claim this is not only absurd, it is also evil. I cannot understand why so many people who have made it become so unbelievably selfish and abandon all compassion for their fellow man, even as they call themselves Christian.
"Do they CHOOSE to live that way?" Of course not, they are just unwilling to put in the EFFORT to change!
ReplyDeleteBut as a compassionate conservative and Christian, I get down in the “trenches and mud” to primarily help minimize the consequences to the children of these individuals, rather than the liberal dilettantes who only sit on the sidelines, wringing their hands, and calling for the government to solve their problems.
Individual effort is the key? Hmm...Maybe if I put out more effort next time I’m at the roulette table in Las Vegas, I’ll win more.
ReplyDeleteMore seriously: You are deeply committed to the Horatio Alger narrative of the human condition, as are most Americans. This is an exceptionally individualistic culture, where Psychology trumps Sociology, where Collectivism is a bad word.
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Maybe some day facts with trump belief. One can always hope...
Not sure how to interpret this - "This is called Sociology, folks. And it’s correct. Get used to it. We are all billiard balls. We are volleys of molecules shot into space, or a swarm of mosquitoes. A few end up on top, a few at the bottom, some on the far left, some on the far right, and most somewhere in the middle. It’s all about probabilities, randomness, the normal distribution, (the “bell curve”), regression towards the mean. Individual characteristics have very little to do with success or failure." If you really believe what you just said then it seems that you should not care how many billionaires there are or how they got their dough.
ReplyDeleteIn reality if you look at the list the random theory is a bit off. Bill Gates and Carlos Selim were and are incredibly driven to succeed in their respective areas - not always the nicest people but incredibly driven.
Second comment - and a reminder - the polarization of incomes which is a bizarre concept in itself - has increased significantly as the current administration has tried to diminish it. The reality is that these kinds of polarizations have happened previously in history - not surprisingly in times of high technological change - what happens, despite the socialist rhetoric is that if government does not get in the way the curve tends to flatten. Remember when cell phones first came out only the rich could afford them. And that is the final test - can you make reliable comparisons about the state of even the poorest in our society to prior times? Indeed, there are a lot of rich people and the American system has helped to create them - but the persons in the lowest income quintile have also benefitted - they live in larger houses than they did a generation ago - and as you saw from the Brazilian example - the very rich do not stay in that condition permanently - unless of course idiotic policies offered by the government help to perpetuate income stagnation.
I always appreciate that Jonathan takes issues seriously.
ReplyDeleteClearly, the “individual agency-vs.-social circumstances” question is not an either-or issue. Both sides have to be recognized, as does C. Wright Mills for example when he writes that the central task of social science is to reveal the intersection of biography and history. Humans have free agency, and they are also at the mercy of vicissitudes.
In my opinion, Americans err on the side of individualism. They claim too much individual credit for their successes, and they blame themselves too much for their failures. In my posts, as a sociologist, I feel that I must counteract this.
The author of this blog "Billionaires" is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Empirical research shows that wealth is traditionally passed through the hands of wealthy families and those who are born into poverty are most likely to stay in poverty no matter how hard they work.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, used the word I several times. Just because one or two people overcome the odds of escaping poverty, does not mean that we should view this as the norm because it isn't. When we decide the heights of doors, they reflect the mean height of all Americans. When you buy food, although it is very expensive, they dont charge you $100,00 for one potterhouse steak in the grocery store, do they? Wealthy people can afford this price but stores dont charge it because only wealthy people would be able to buy it(and stores would lost profit), right? Businesses want our money! And they, business owners, want to save money at our expense. This is why companies like Walmart pay low wages. Economic exploitation of the poor is rampant and if we really live by the golden rule, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" where is the fairness in our social and economic gap which is creating greater and greater tension between the "haves and the have nots" So why do we judge peoples' ability to overcome extreme poverty and social inequality by the one or two people who made it out ( most often with resources that they fail to acknowledge )? To say that people are in their situation because they have not worked hard demonstrates a naive and misinformed attitude which further perpetuates ignorance regarding this subject.
Anonymous, where is your compassion and humanity?
Bravo! You have made the case on the very grounds on which it should be made. It is, on the basis of reason (which no longer means anything in the U.S.), indisputable. How sad that few can accept what is as plain as day.
ReplyDeleteThis is good work. Interesting reference resource.
ReplyDeleteIt’s good to get supportive comments. I thank Gail, David and Bruce. They all know what they are talking about.
ReplyDeleteYou ask “where is your humanity and compassion?”
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, the difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants think Faith alone (i.e. the belief that Christ is your savior) will get you to heaven, whereas Catholics believe you need both Faith and good Deeds to get to heaven, i.e. Faith without Deeds is hollow.
As a Catholic, I take that directive to heart and tithe to various Catholic charities, but giving money is too easy. Time is what counts. I’m treasurer of a local Catholic charity, so I spend several hours a week taking care of my fiduciary responsibilities. But more importantly, I spend one week a month manning a phone for that charity, referring callers to various social service agencies and charities that may be able to help them, and in 5 – 10 cases per week, making a home visit with my partner to that caller where we pray with them, counsel them, and in most cases financially assist them with their rent or utility payments.
I have visited many clients requesting financial assistance that have larger flat screens than I, many with cable TV (that I don’t have because I consider it a waste), and many that have the thermostat higher than I ( because even though I’m moderately well off, I’m also cheap). I see electronic games and DVD’s for their kids, but no books. I see trash and clothes on the floor. As such, I have “humanity and compassion” enough to help, but I also have cynicism enough to realize they are not going to put the EFFORT into change. As with the boiling frog analogy, with the government safety net, many of these people are never uncomfortable enough to do anything about their situation.
I see liberals sitting on the sideline talking about “compassion and humanity” and waiting for the government so solve the problem. But isn’t “compassion and humanity” without Deeds hollow?
So I have answered your question, now I ask you : “where are your Deeds?”
I am not going to get into a contest about our respective “deeds.”
ReplyDeleteYour philanthropic work is commendable.
You raise an important issue: To their credit, Americans have always had a strong philanthropic tradition. This is one of the country’s paradoxes - many, generous, altruistic and hospitable people, yet also many deplorable conditions, much poverty, an astronomical prison population, etc.
The question is whether social problems are best solved through private charity, Good Samaritanism, or through (government-based) social policy. Europeans have traditionally opted for the latter, which requires higher taxes of course. This is one of the basic differences between Europe and America.
I can already predict your rebuttal, that European-style socialism has been a disaster, etc.
And you would once again be wrong. The verdict as to which approach works best is not yet in.
amazing . . .thank you for your research . . .and I agree with Tom. I might say that Advantage when combined with other qualities like generosity, creativity, opportunity, and awareness, would really help the ones on the left side of the bell curve. But all of us live on the same earth and if we don't protect and restore it . . .will it matter to the seventh generation to come? We need to come to the middle and honor our planet home.
ReplyDelete