It was reported recently, by an organization called Oxfam, that the 85 richest people in the world control as much wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest. I'll put that a different way: There are roughly 7 billion people in the world, which means, even to a math idiot like me, that 3.5 billion people are roughly half the people on this Earth. Want more math? That's 1 out of 2 people. Look at the person next to you. One or the other of you is in that 3.5 billion group. The other of you, as a matter of housekeeping, isn't then, by default, part of that top 85, just FYI. Half, for math wizards like me is 50% of the people. 85 total people, for real math geniuses, is 0.000000012% of the people.
Now, I'm no chemistry major either, but I'm relatively sure you could consume 0.000000012% of mercury, arsenic, DDT or hemlock and continue to live. That's how small of a percentage that is. OK, now that the comparative math is established, here's the real issue:
Oxfam is a social activism organization-started in Oxford to address global famine, hence, Ox Fam. Poverty, as a result, is an obstacle the organization, obviously, sees as key to inhibiting its cause, thus the report.
But the report in and of itself isn't what is most startling. What is most startling is that there are people championing the numbers released in this report...for the 85 rich people. Yes, you read that right. In a recent interview, capitalist extraordinaire Kevin O'Leary, responded to the news issued by Oxfam as "fantastic."
<sound of crickets chirping>
Indeed, in much the same way that a driver 48 laps down in the Daytona 500 being passed by the race leader once more is motivated to drive even faster, O'Leary suggested that the remaining 6,999,999,915 of us in the bottom half of the world's wealth pool, would see this as motivating to "work hard" to get to the top with them.
<sound of crickets chirping>
This automatically jumped to the top of my "stupidest comment ever" list, replacing long-time champion, "I'm voting for Hitler. What's the worst that could happen?"
Where to begin? First, the suggestion that the volume of work one puts in equates directly to income is, at best, stupid and, at worst, insultingly condemning of 99.999999998% of the people on this planet. Included in the not-hard working, slovenly, lazy people at the bottom: cops, teachers, nurses, soldiers, construction workers, farmers and virtually everyone else that goes to work every day. In addition, to say the people included in that 85 got there through hard work alone is ridiculously laughable. Certainly there are plenty among those 85 who have created something and benefited from the popularity of said product, but there are loads of people within that 85-like the Walton heirs, Leonard Lauder, Charles Butt, Anne Cox Chambers and the Mars heirs-that got onto the list through the hard work associated with being born.
But who cares, really? I don't. I don't fancy a "redistribution of wealth," as O'Leary warned against as a measure to balance things out. But his idea of how to bring about greater balance in this equation is simply ridiculous and utterly stupid. Those people in the bottom half of wealth, which is all of us, in truth, can't get into that top half, become one of those 85 through hard work. Perhaps one or two or a dozen of us, two dozen, can invent something like Amazon.com or Google and get there that way, but surely not all of us. It's not practical.
Every journalist that works for Rupert Murdoch, say, and works infinitely hard will become a billionaire? Every Amazon procurement center employee, working as fantastically hard as you can imagine will be a billionaire? More importantly, what if they do? If there are 7 billion Warren Buffets in the world, what's the meaning of wealth? Your billion is worthless next to mine and everyone else's billion dollars.
That's not the point, which O'Leary seems to miss entirely. If a blind man was standing at the plate at AT&T Park, at night, with no moon, the lights off, facing the backstop instead of the mound and a blindfold around his eyes for good measure, swinging at a 99 mph pitch thrown by Stephen Strasburg-3,000 miles away in Washington DC-wouldn't swing and miss as badly as O'Leary did over the point of this report. I don't think most people begrudge the ultra wealthy their super billions. They do, however, find it problematic that as many as 1 out of 2 people in the world can't manage basic human needs-food, water, shelter. And certainly, wealthy or not, it's a problem worth the effort required to fix it. And it's a problem of significant magnitude, which is the point of the report, to demonstrate scale.
But getting back to Oxfam's original quest to help obliterate global famine: Those advocates need only find several grossly obese people and display them to those living in famine. These overly fat people will motivate the sickly and malnourished that there is food in the world and will encourage them to work hard to find some.
Man, solving world problems is fun!
No comments:
Post a Comment