If you’re reading this, there’s a really good chance that you’re in the one percent.
That means that out of all of the 8B inhabitants of the planet, you are among the very top of people in regards to living conditions.
Recently, the Global Rich list performed a study in which they analyzed what it really means to be in the top one percent of global earners, and they found that in order to fit that criteria, you must earn either
· 30,250 Euros
· 2 million Indian Rupees
· 223,000 Chinese Yuan
· 32,400 USD
In retrospect, this isn’t too much money.
What this means is that if you live in the developed world and you have a job, you are (most likely) in the one percent.
In the United States, the average income in $59,039, well above what it takes to be in the global one percent of earners.
In the UK, the average income in 2015 was £27,195
And in Europe, the average yearly salary was right above 30,000 Euros.
Speaking in broad terms, if you’re reading this and you get a job after college with a salary working more than minimum wage, you’ll make enough to put you in the global one percent.
Or, if you don’t yet have your own job but you rely on your parents who have jobs, that also puts you in the one percent if they earn more than minimum wage and work full time.
Even if you don’t meet these criteria specifically or fall right below it, you wills still find yourself in the top 3 or 4 percent of global earners.
It’s not hard to be in the global one percent.
When considering the one percent of wealth in the world, there are two ways to consider it. Firstly, the global perspective in which you account for all 4B people.
The WorldBank did a study in which it found that did a study in which it analyzed the conditions of individuals living in extreme poverty.
· Among those, nearly half of the world’s population lives on less that $2.50 a day
· More than 1.3 B live under less than $1.25 a day.
· Furthermore, Oxfam found that nearly 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day.
Considering these statistics, the illusion of the normal citizen in a developed country being economically disenfranchised on a global level begins to disintegrate. Though in Western countries, there has been massive unrest in regards to increasing gaps in wealth, the fact of the matter is that the very folks who protest the unevenness of wealth are within its highest echelons.
The other lens through which wealth inequality can be considered is on a single country basis. In your home country, you are most likely not in the one percent. Those who are in the one percent in a country like the US or the UK find themselves in the one percent of the one percent of an even more miniscule one percent of global earners.
The .000001 percent.
Those in the highest echelons of one percent (ie they are one percenters in countries like the US) earn 389,000 a year. The wealthier the country, the richer the one percent.
The dilemma that arises is that if individuals who protest against the one percent fail to realize that many of them are in the one percent in a way as well, then there will never be any progress.
Though the stagnation of wealth in individual countries is a major issue, many don’t consider the more broad spectrum of wealth disparity.
Someone living in the bottom one percent of the world’s earners is in much worse shape than someone in the bottom percent of America’s earners, or any other Western country.
The challenge is that in today’s media saturated age, people have a difficult time realizing that there are many with more debilitating circumstances than their own. Global poverty is a hard issue to solve when there are wealthy individuals convinced that they are extremely poor.
So, before the problem of what the one percent really is disappears, there needs to be a radical shift in perspective of where many of us are on the global scale.
So, what’s the solution?
Well, the short answer is that there really isn’t one. The most important thing that people can do is realize their realistic economic standing.
Realization leads to conversation. Conversation leads to policy. Policy (sometimes) leads to results.
What do you think?