The richest people in the world start the new year $524 billion richer than in 2013. That’s according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, which ranks the 300 wealthiest people across the globe. “It is one of biggest gains we’ve seen in a really long time – probably in the last decade,” Bloomberg Billionaires Editor Matt Miller says.
Bill Gates, founder and chairman of Microsoft, was the biggest gainer of the year adding $15.8b to his $78.5b fortune, a sum that makes him the richest person in the world. Not only did shares of Microsoft (MSFT) rise 40% in 2013, but Gates also benefited from a rally in stock holdings he owns through an investment entity called Cascade Investment.
The top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the gains in incomes in the first three years of the recovery, according to an analysis of tax returns. The richest 10 percent of Americans earned a larger share of income last year than at any time since 1917, earning 12 times their counterparts in the poorest decile.
"Wall Street is roaring and Main Street is struggling," Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, said in an interview. "Quantitative easing has really exacerbated income inequality."
The S&P 500 index rose 29.6 percent in 2013. The richest third of U.S. households account for 89 percent of all equities ownership, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The income distribution in the United States in 2012, the top 0.01 percent of households earned an average of $10.25 million, while the mean household income for the country overall was $51,000. From 1980 through 2008 employment and income stagnated for the masses, while the share of wealth for the top 1 percent grew to 35 percent from 20 percent, a 75 percent rise.
The psychologist Melvin Lerner developed just world theory in the 1960s, arguing that we’re motivated to believe that the world is a fair place. The alternative—a universe where bad things happen to good people—is too upsetting. So we engage defense mechanisms such as blaming the victim. Apparently if you feel that you’re doing well, you want to believe success comes to those who deserve it, and therefore those of lower status must not deserve it. (Incidentally, the argument that you “deserve” anything because of your genes is philosophically contentious; none of us did anything to earn our genes.)
Higher-class Americans may well believe life is fair because they’re motivated to defend their egos and lifestyle, but there’s an additional twist to their greater belief in a just world. Numerous researchers have found that upper-class people are more likely to explain other people’s behavior by appealing to internal traits and abilities, whereas lower-class individuals note circumstances and environmental forces. This matches reality in many ways for these respective groups. The rich do generally have the freedom to pursue their desires and strengths, while for the poor, external limitations often outnumber their opportunities. The poor realize they could have the best genes in the world and still end up working at McDonald’s.
It makes sense that talent and drive, some portion of which are related to genetic variation, contribute to success. But that’s a far cry from saying “It is possible to determine one’s social class by examining his or her genes.” Such a statement ignores the role of wealth inheritance, the social connections one shares with one’s parents, or the educational opportunities family money can buy—not to mention strokes of good or bad luck.
Bill Gates, founder and chairman of Microsoft, was the biggest gainer of the year adding $15.8b to his $78.5b fortune, a sum that makes him the richest person in the world. Not only did shares of Microsoft (MSFT) rise 40% in 2013, but Gates also benefited from a rally in stock holdings he owns through an investment entity called Cascade Investment.
The top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the gains in incomes in the first three years of the recovery, according to an analysis of tax returns. The richest 10 percent of Americans earned a larger share of income last year than at any time since 1917, earning 12 times their counterparts in the poorest decile.
"Wall Street is roaring and Main Street is struggling," Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, said in an interview. "Quantitative easing has really exacerbated income inequality."
The S&P 500 index rose 29.6 percent in 2013. The richest third of U.S. households account for 89 percent of all equities ownership, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The income distribution in the United States in 2012, the top 0.01 percent of households earned an average of $10.25 million, while the mean household income for the country overall was $51,000. From 1980 through 2008 employment and income stagnated for the masses, while the share of wealth for the top 1 percent grew to 35 percent from 20 percent, a 75 percent rise.
The psychologist Melvin Lerner developed just world theory in the 1960s, arguing that we’re motivated to believe that the world is a fair place. The alternative—a universe where bad things happen to good people—is too upsetting. So we engage defense mechanisms such as blaming the victim. Apparently if you feel that you’re doing well, you want to believe success comes to those who deserve it, and therefore those of lower status must not deserve it. (Incidentally, the argument that you “deserve” anything because of your genes is philosophically contentious; none of us did anything to earn our genes.)
Higher-class Americans may well believe life is fair because they’re motivated to defend their egos and lifestyle, but there’s an additional twist to their greater belief in a just world. Numerous researchers have found that upper-class people are more likely to explain other people’s behavior by appealing to internal traits and abilities, whereas lower-class individuals note circumstances and environmental forces. This matches reality in many ways for these respective groups. The rich do generally have the freedom to pursue their desires and strengths, while for the poor, external limitations often outnumber their opportunities. The poor realize they could have the best genes in the world and still end up working at McDonald’s.
It makes sense that talent and drive, some portion of which are related to genetic variation, contribute to success. But that’s a far cry from saying “It is possible to determine one’s social class by examining his or her genes.” Such a statement ignores the role of wealth inheritance, the social connections one shares with one’s parents, or the educational opportunities family money can buy—not to mention strokes of good or bad luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment