62 VS 50%

Crowd of people

Crowd of people
Crowd of people

No, this isn't Sparta.

I think that people should sit down and ponder over for a bit.

There are a few remarkable statistics in there.

The first one is that the top 1% are now richer than the rest of the world combined.

Normally in a functioning economy, you would expect it to be closer to the top 20% owning 80% of the wealth, but the world economy has been turned on its head.

Secondly, the graph on that page shows that the global recession hasnt hurt the rich, only the poor. Remember that around the world, the money of the poor was used to bail out the rich. and now the poor are at each others throats not even realising how badly they have been swindled.

Probably the most startling fact is that the richest 62 people have more wealth than the poorest 50% of the world population combined.

It wasn't always meant to be this way.

You may remember at school being taught about a concept of wealth where in the future there would be a time when people would have to work less and have more time for leasure. This was predicted by a famous economist called Kaynes, I think in the 1930's. His theory worked until the late 70's/early 80's.

Since then the amount of working hours has remained stagnant, due to a number of reasons.

The major reason is that his theory expected wealth distribution to stay the same. Instead more of the money has been going to the top instead of to the average worker, hence needing to work just as long if not longer.

A second reason is political - the idea of people working less hours and having more time to consider their civic affairs petrifies the elite as when people have the time to wonder about their futures, they wil demand change. They prefer people working harder and longer to avoid such outcomes at all costs.

It is due to this you will see the absurdity of a mother working full time to pay for child care which will consume the entirety of her wages - While the end result of wealth distribution remains the same, it has occupied the time of two people who will find it dificult to engage in defining how society works.

While we have to be a part of the system, it is important to know the ways in which it has been rigged and why.


Interesting article, but there is more. Other bloggers have picked up on this. It usual occurs every January when news is slow and The Forbes Rich list comes out.


Probably worth a look, but don’t get too upset, have a little look at another site.

It as a section where you can put in your annual income and see where you are in the world rich list. It is interesting, especially when you think some of the managers of charities have annual salaries of £120k+.

The above is a Blog with a half decent article on a similar theme to yours, again well worth a read, for both the article and the comments.

Just a slight digression on world poverty. China as pulled millions of its people [not all] out of abstract poverty and have raised their living standards.

It is also interesting to look at the number of Countries that broke away from their old colonial masters and see how their living standards have altered [some have been independent for at least fifty years are more.

Then look at poverty in sub Saharan Africa. Ask the question, billions of aid has been given to these countries. Where as it all gone? Is it to bank accounts of their new rulers? Is it because of the high birth rates? Is it because aid money as not been spent wisely.

Or is the fault of the western world again? Bearing in mind that Europe was smashed, broke and had a major displacement of people spread all over Europe. Also had to spend a fortune on rebuilding a war ravaged Europe as well as spending a fortune on the Cold War?

As for working hours being reduced. When I left school a 46-hour week and working Saturday morning was the norm. When I retired the working week had come down to 38 hours.

On the subject of retiring [the state pension age is now 68] This, I believe is silly. Why make an older person work longer [maybe not reach pension age] whilst having youngsters having no hope of getting a job? Yes there is a saving to the Exchequer, but if youngsters are not kept busy they may start to think. This is the last thing any government wants.