Eighty-five is equal to 3.5 billion.
A report released last week from Oxfam, an international organization that seeks ways to address injustice in the world, found that the wealth of the richest 85 people in the world — 78 of whom are men — equals the combined wealth of the world’s 3.5 billion poorest people.
The numbers have created a buzz in the global community and are encouraging conversations among policy leaders about the issues of income inequality and lack of upward mobility in both the U.S. and the world.
It’s not just politicians leading the dialogue. Pope Francis, in his first written text released in November, criticized the growing gap in wealth and income: “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”
While this is a global issue, the United States is especially plagued by economic inequalities. Since 1980, the share of income of the richest 1 percent in the U.S. increased nearly 150 percent — more than any other country in the world. A study by the Economic Policy Institute reported that a typical CEO is paid 273 times more than the average worker. Does that yawning gap reflect that the CEOs work 273 times harder than everyone else? Or is something else at play?
It is hard to believe that so many children are born into poverty in one of the wealthiest nations in the world. What seems worse is that the chance that a person born into poverty will drastically improve his or her condition is slim — especially when a poor education or lack of decent health care intrudes. Our country ranks much lower than most other developed countries, such as Denmark, in upward economic mobility. Even within the U.S., there are disparities in mobility between regions of the country. A report from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “the probability that a child reaches the top quintile of the national income distribution starting from a family in the bottom quintile is 4.4 percent in Charlotte but 12.9 percent in San Jose,” pointing to the especially dampened mobility in the South.
President Obama addressed the inequalities in wealth and income in December at the Center for American Progress, declaring, “I believe this is the defining challenge of our time: making sure our economy works for every working American.”
Why is it crucial that we face this challenge? John Rawls, an influential philosopher, once said that economic inequalities are permissible only if they actually help those who are struggling the most. It seems implausible that the increase in wealth of the 1 percent will help anyone at the bottom of the economic ladder. A shrinking middle class and growing community of impoverished people will only further depress the economy, as many individuals will be unable to fully participate in the economy. Increased poverty causes more reliance on government support programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and unemployment insurance. Yet, despite increased demand, funding for the programs are shrinking. The new version of the farm bill that is expected to pass this week would cut food stamps by nearly $9 billion over the next decade.
In addition to the direct economic impacts on individual families and on the larger economy as a whole, there are indirect consequences caused by huge inequalities. Especially since the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court, money equates to political power and influence. When lack of money means lack of voice, then the very policies that allowed the super-rich to get that way will only be protected, furthering the exclusion of people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
None of this is to say that everyone should have equal levels of wealth or income. But to allow for such incredible discrepancies in an environment that is hostile to upward mobility threatens the very democratic nature of our country. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.”
Christine Dickason is a junior public policy leadership major from Collierville, Tenn.
