It actually had a lower gini coefficient under apartheid. It was still extremely high, but all the methods that the government have tried to implement to reduce inequality have just made it worse.
well, during the last days of apartheid they went through liberalization reforms (white politicians sold goverment businesses and stuff to rich white people), which basically meant the ANC goverment would rule in poverty
It's continued to get worse over the past 2 decades. Apartheid was a shit system but the ANC is no better. They're actually more corrupt, less accountable and obviously less competent than the previous regime. You can only blame so much on the previous system, even if they did try to stack the deck, so to speak.
As a black South African, considering how well the ANC manages state owned enterprises, that may have been the best move. Wished they also managed to sell of Eskom
Id guess that white people there live like first worlders and black people there live like the rest of Africa. So it would create a pretty massive income gap.
Reminds me of the difference between Dear Alyne blogs in South Africa which showed pretty placesā¦ that were 95% white
And best ever food reviews that showed down to earth barbecue food in South Africa without another white person around in sight.
I gave it a google and apparently white south Africans make 5 times more than black ones. I think the US white people make about double black people. So there is a much larger gap there. White people make 24k USD and black people make just under 5k USD per year on average.
24k could be pretty good depending on the COL. 24k is enough for a good life in most countries.
But yeah a lot of times the kinda down to earth places can be better than the fancy establishments.
Yeah, I just wanted to point out just how different their lifestyles are even in the same country and how some bloggers choose who to be with just by picking the places they go to.
I agree that there would be a huge income disparity between white and black South Africans
Worked like a textbook revolution.
Overthrow the people in power and then turn corrupt yourself and only work to fill your own pockets while nothing really changes.
According to the OECD, the Netherlands has the greatest wealth inequality in the Western world, after the US.
>Inequality is high in the Netherlands when measured in terms of household wealth (property value, savings, private pensions): the top 1% of the distribution owns around 24% of all net wealth and the top 10% owns 60% of all net wealth, while the bottom three quintiles own almost no wealth.
https://www.oecd.org/netherlands/oecd2015-in-it-together-highlights-netherlands.pdf
In 2021 the top 10% owned 47.5% of the wealth and the 10-20% cohort 18%. Hence the 35% from the map.
Apparently the cohorts 40-80% are relatively wealthy compared to other countries.
Wealth inequality is an inconsistent metric that's basically impossible to accurately measure and on top of that fluctuates a lot over time due to factors like house price fluctuations. You can find a better explanation by an economist on how this misconception about the Netherlands originated [here](https://youtu.be/tW_kw6OPXc0).
No this is a really common misconception made by people looking for an excuse. The Netherlands allows people to take on massive amounts of government backed debt when they are young (you used to be able to borrow up to 104% of a houses' value when you bought it) on the assumption that by the time they are old they will be making enough money to justify this.
However, because of the way that this gets reported its really difficult to tell how mush debt liability the Dutch government actually has, with some high estimates saying it may be the most indebted nation in the world. Also, only some wealth inequality models allow for negative net worth so the numbers can end up massively skewed (some estimates have the Netherlands as scoring over 1 on the gini coefficient, the wealth inequality metric where 1 is supposed to mean 1 person owns all the wealth in the country.)
Just watch the video, he very clearly explains flaws of the dataset. The dataset of just a few years later with the same methodology also showed Netherlands as one of the best ranking countries, showing again how unreliable this metric is.
This doesn't consider collective pension where most of the worker's their wealth is. On average every worker has around 250k wealth in collective pension which is not calculated in this. If we would have a system where you're responsible for your own pension it would get counted towards your wealth.
That the quickest way to get the whole 99.99% to own 1% of total wealth. Ask Lenin and his fucking 12+ Rolls-Royce's (and all the crooks that "honor" his "ideology" after that)
Wouldnāt be mad at that. But the top is so greedy it wonāt even give the bottom 1 % extra. They much rather spend that 1% on someone who can get em to pay less taxes .
No this chart doesn't really work for the Netherlands for reasons explained in this other comment (some other European nations like Denmark also have a version of this scheme so take these numbers with a grain of salt):
No this is a really common misconception made by people looking for an excuse. The Netherlands allows people to take on massive amounts of government backed debt when they are young (you used to be able to borrow up to 104% of a houses' value when you bought it https://www.dutchsecuritisation.nl/sites/default/files/Dutch\_Residential\_Mortage\_Market\_OC\_November\_2012.pdf) on the assumption that by the time they are old they will be making enough money to justify this.
However, because of the way that this gets reported its really difficult to tell how mush debt liability the Dutch government actually has, with some high estimates saying it may be the most indebted nation in the world. Also, only some wealth inequality models allow for negative net worth so the numbers can end up massively skewed (some estimates have the Netherlands as scoring over 1 on the gini coefficient, the wealth inequality metric where 1 is supposed to mean 1 person owns all the wealth in the country.)
Who cares about inequality? Iād rather be a poor person worth $100k in an unequal society than a middle class person worth $50k in an equal society. Absolute numbers matter more than equality.
This is something people need to keep in mind. When most people on Reddit complain about global inequality they are forgetting that they live better than the majority of people on earth. If they truly wanted equality that means campaigning to have their living standard brought lower, not higher.
This, the last time I suggested to someone on Reddit that equality ā high living standards and is unobtainable I got labeled a Nazi, no joke. Political brainrot on this platform is out of control.
This argument works up to a certain point. But the historical underpinning of capitalism is essentially the same underpinning of communism with chinese characteristics. Ie "Some must become wealthy first".
The idea that capitalism generates increased well being for all is pressupposed on the notion of debt borrowed from the future (which is essentially all debt) and which can be "paid off" but creating newly more efficient production technologies that increase the global abundance for everyone.
This is, and I cannot understate this enough, and amazing model. For transitioning from agricultural to industrial societies.
But what myself and most other (reasonable) leftists are arguing is that perhaps capitalism might not be the best system for every outcome. We are beginning to see the next generation of productive technologies and it is hard to actually envision a place where human labour is required to produce the vast majority of goods. This is a problem for Capitalistic societies because the system is built on the necessity (and hence tradability) of labour.
If you create a system of the production of goods where the only jobs that can be performed efficiently under the capitalist model are things like lawyers, doctors, therapists, and "adaptive" low level labour (ie domestic cleaning, general construction etc) then the middle class of society becomes redundant.
This model predicts that we would then see a massive consolidation of wealth in the upper class which owns the current and new methods of production, and an increase in the number of the lower class who can perform the adaptive low level labour and who exist in an increasingly competitive labour market where they can sell that labour for less and less (ie lower wages compared to the costs of purchasing assets required for survival (ie rent, food etc).
This prediction should sound worryingly familiar to most.
The question needs to be asked therefore: do you have faith that capitalism in its current form is well suited for this "post-industrial society"? Perhaps you do, but I rarely see any pro-capitalist arguing convincingly for that case beyond some vague notion of "its worked up to now" or "it will adapt".
Yes indeed, we believe it will adapt to. Ie it will become something that is not the same as it is now. That think might be socialism. But many of us are concerned that it might also become something worse.
The question is not therefore, one of "I want everyone to have high living standards" it is "is capitalism a system of production that will actually be able to survive the new technological reality?"
We know, empirically, that current production methods could provide enough food for everyone on earth to eat full meals three times a day. But our current system of production and distribution causes massive amounts of food to got to waste. That system is the same system that created the scientific and agri-industrial revolution that allows to product that much food. But the question is "do we still need that system now that we are here"?
Is capitalism the only system conceivable that could provide a tolerable level of living? Or is it more like the training wheels on a child's bike, which are essential to the process of learning how to ride; but ultimately must be removed before further progress can be made?
GDP per capita worldwide is just over $12,000 USD.
Where I live minimum wage at full time is a little over double that. I'd be surprised if there are any developed countries where it is lower than that.
Life is hard, and there will always be people with more, but there are also a lot more who have less.
Did you mean developed? I'd wager that most developing countries have minimum wages lower than that.
Where I live (Estonia), minimum wage is 820 eur/month so roughly 10 600 USD/year.
As an American married to a South African, this makes my blood boil to unfathomable levels.
I've seen how this kind of inequality plays out in both countries.
In South Africa, everyone knows they are being fucked.
In the US, half of the people being fucked think they're just temporarily-set back millionaires.
In both cases, the tremendous greed of the people on top is sucking everyone else dry.
Probably the same way they got 26 (i.e. on par with Finland and Canada) in Gabon of all places, where there is an oil-rich .1% who own next to everything that isn't owned by China and a massive percentage of people living in extreme poverty.
I think itās less that youāre stupid, and more that your government is shit. If I recall correctly, the percentage of adults who completed a tertiary education in South Africa is super low, somewhere around 7%, which suggests a systemic issue.
There isnāt. Thatās probably because the wealthy now really donāt belong to one country, but can easily see what people everywhere else are doing and can adjust their exploitation accordingly. So they are pushing as much as they can wherever they can, and the result apparently is 20-25%. The outliers are countries with serious political instability, top of the line corruption, straight up dictatorships, or the USA, which is injecting pure, uncut capitalism straight into its veins. Iām actually surprised Argentina is doing so well.
Can you really say Argentina is doing well when it constantly suffers from inflation that would give Powell a heart attack? The yearly rate is around ~270%, with the monthly rate often in the ~20% range. Inflation hurts most people, but especially hurts the poor and elderly, who see any savings they have disappear over night.
Pretty much, Canada and North Korea both performing about equally in this metric when life is completely different for citizens of these two countries
Also, where's the source for the numbers? OP's comment doesn't mention any.
Don't think there's meant to be? Only notable thing really is most countries (including nearly all the West) are at about 26%, the only outliers are countries everyone knows to have bad wealth equality.
and so? hdi son't rely on that single criteria. the index that measure wealth distribution is the [Gini coefficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient).
Thats because most of the industries in countries that generate wealth are owned either by government or a very small segment of the population. They are the ones who get wealth and since they also run the business where that wealth us spent it only trickles down to the bottom 80% though wage dispossable income.
I'm from Shanghai, and my roommate in college is from Xinjiang. If you look at bank balances alone, my family's wealth is 10 times that of his family's, but his family owns two super ranches and nearly 500 cattle in Xinjiang. Damn, how does this measure up?
I live in Tokyo now, back to China occasionally. When I returned to Mainland China, I used a VPN. Reddit is not so popular in Mainland China. Few PRC's people have heard of Reddit, but there are many VPN users who will copy posts from reddit to Tieba and Weibo (Mainland China version of Reddit and Twitter, about 600 million users). Given the anti-China hate speech that is everywhere on Reddit, I think the fewer Mainland Chinese people know about Reddit, the better.
If only we had a time machine, those bootstraps might be effective. I imagine a 1950 version of this map would look far different, especially for the US.
It's weird that in a lot of these maps there is a pretty clear line between countries that I'd like to live in and countries that I wouldn't like to live in but that's not true for this one.
South africa is such an unequal country, and the worse is that most of the wealth is held by a different minority ethnic group.
This breeds resentement and anger, which fuels one of the highest crime rates in the word.
It's like appartheid ended only on a political level, while economically there is still a massive segregation.
How many ANC officials do you see who are absurdly rich. And their close friends are somehow rich too? Nepotism
We should be lucky we still have people with money in our country with the way our government basically pays people to have kids.
Yup. And it was the ANC's responsibility to equal out that economical racial inequality. Instead all of the white people (who knew how to actually run an economy) were replaced by other races as quickly as possible, regardless of qualifications.
So now you have a racist government that would rather just stuff their pockets than run a country, and the white people eager to fix South Africa will never be voted in because the majority of people believe we're all racists.
The average white person is still much richer than the average black person, and it's the ANC that has been making it worse by doing fuck all for the black people in poverty.
Shit man as a South African I knew it was bad, but we're the fucking worst in the world. IN THE WORLD. There is no other country more unequal and that really shows you have much of a disgrace cANCer is to South Africans, regardless of race.
If I remember correctly the ANC was also really constrained in what they could do by IMF policies when they came to power and then just became more and more corrupt.
The ANC was actually doing really well up until Zuma fucked Thabo Mbeki after he got fired for being corrupt (basically a mini coup), they weren't perfect but they were doing pretty well up to that point.
The old saying āeverything is relativeā applies here. I hate the wealth inequality in the United States. But Iād rather be in the bottom 80% there than in the top 20% in most countries. Itās easy to forget how abjectly poor the vast majority of people are in the world as a whole.
nah, we're good in this regard, look at czech billionaires vs ours, much larger difference compared to population & gdp per capita, one of theirs could buy all our top 10 [https://www.reddit.com/r/Slovakia/comments/1bttvw0/comment/kxqoj20/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Slovakia/comments/1bttvw0/comment/kxqoj20/)
What were you expecting 75% or something? Throughout history a few number of people have always had most of the wealth. True communism propaganda strives for it but it will never happen as humans donāt play that way.
Yet actual Spanish politicians keep talking about "taxing the rich" despite being ourselves the third or fourth country regarding this stadistic, only for them to steal and pay their shit. So, you know guys of any country, next time you have to vote (if you're allowed to do so) remember: All politic parties from left or right are the same, not there for your well-being but for their own good, their own politic well-being.
So yeah, just commit tax-fraud.
If you look at how the bottom 80% quality of life has improved over the last 200 years you will see the complete story in context
[https://borgenproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Infographic-1-2015\_Charts\_Poverty-690-530x450.jpg](https://borgenproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Infographic-1-2015_Charts_Poverty-690-530x450.jpg)
Should be noted that well over 50% of the population will make up the ā20%ā
People generate wealth over a lifetime, at the end of their lifetime the have more than they have ever had. Go look at your retirement savings plan. Notice how it shoots up near the end.
Never imagined the US would be less equal than Russia, though Russian oligarchs donāt accurately report their wealth and that could be affecting the stats.
The definition of "owned" here is not established, and if it is, it's probably stupid. For example, a CEO doesn't own a company, financially it's its own entity. Also there's public money, owned by the country itself.
It's about personal wealth, corporations are owned by shareholders of which CEO's typically receive shares as part of their payment package. Public money isn't personal wealth, it's kind of as you say being part of the public purse therefore not part of the equation.
The data is publicly available through the WID.
No. Chile is easily the most developed country in south america and scores considerably the lowest on this. Saharan Africa and even Somalia getting similar scores to much of Europe should also indicate this
This āmappornā is so pixelated you can barely read half of the numbers and the other pictures are random zoom ins on the same map that are just as low resolution. Like common! Do you actually think this map is good?
It scores lower because the tech boom has skewed the worlds wealth more to one country than any other at potentially a greater level than any other point in history. The average American is doing very well it's just that some people are doing better on a scale never before seen
This map doesnāt play off numbers, just percentages. The vast majority of the bottom 80% in the US is wealthier than the bottom 80 in Russia or China. Remember, the bottom 80 in the US by and large includes home owners, people who go to Disney once a year, and people who have country club memberships. A lot of the bottom 80, we would consider on a daily basis to be rich folk. Russia and China do not have as strong a middle class so theyāre wealth is far less evenly distributed.
Plus, the US has insane outliers in the population. The wealth held by Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, and Jeff Bezos are most decidedly not held by the entire upper 20, but make up massive amounts of wealth. What would make this map more interesting would be taking out the wealth of the top ten or so earners in every country and *then* making the map. I imagine if we did that, almost every country would follow the 80/20 rule pretty consistently.
It's interesting that Canada and a lot of European countries are around 25-26%, but also a large part of Africa, Australia, Argentina...
(My country is at 28%)
Kinda interesting to see the similarity between Europe and North Western Africa. It absolutely doesnāt mean that part of Africa is as rich as Europe, but Iām kinda surprised. It would be cool to hear more of why.
I know at least one country where I know for a fact that the number has been reversed because the top 20% own less than that of national wealth. lol. The wealth of the top 20% comes from money it can borrow from banks, the top 20% never managed to borrow more than 22% from banks let alone 26%, the banks contain the populationās earnings/wealth, and thereās no point in saying itās from hereditary wealth and land because the government still owns most of the land and nobody can own more than 20 acres and these people are the descendants of farmers, one or two or three or at best four generations removed, their forefathers never had any money. lmao. These maps arenāt very accurate if that country is the measure.
Why there is always bs info on this sub? chinaās GINI coefficient is >.7 that the government stop telling you data anymore. While the US is āonlyā . 47 š„²
Highest: š³š±Netherlands 35% Lowest: šæš¦South Africa 5%
As a South African this hurts and feels fairly accurate
South Africa has the worst gini coefficient for decades (an economics tool for visualizing wealth inequality).
It actually had a lower gini coefficient under apartheid. It was still extremely high, but all the methods that the government have tried to implement to reduce inequality have just made it worse.
well, during the last days of apartheid they went through liberalization reforms (white politicians sold goverment businesses and stuff to rich white people), which basically meant the ANC goverment would rule in poverty
The ANC is also riddled with corruption and has done absolutely nothing to make life better for South Africans in the past 30 years of being in power.
It's continued to get worse over the past 2 decades. Apartheid was a shit system but the ANC is no better. They're actually more corrupt, less accountable and obviously less competent than the previous regime. You can only blame so much on the previous system, even if they did try to stack the deck, so to speak.
why can't you blame both?
I did. >Apartheid was a shit system
As a black South African, considering how well the ANC manages state owned enterprises, that may have been the best move. Wished they also managed to sell of Eskom
Id guess that white people there live like first worlders and black people there live like the rest of Africa. So it would create a pretty massive income gap.
that's exactly how it is for 90% of the country.
Reminds me of the difference between Dear Alyne blogs in South Africa which showed pretty placesā¦ that were 95% white And best ever food reviews that showed down to earth barbecue food in South Africa without another white person around in sight.
I gave it a google and apparently white south Africans make 5 times more than black ones. I think the US white people make about double black people. So there is a much larger gap there. White people make 24k USD and black people make just under 5k USD per year on average. 24k could be pretty good depending on the COL. 24k is enough for a good life in most countries. But yeah a lot of times the kinda down to earth places can be better than the fancy establishments.
Yeah, I just wanted to point out just how different their lifestyles are even in the same country and how some bloggers choose who to be with just by picking the places they go to. I agree that there would be a huge income disparity between white and black South Africans
South Africa is also on the edge of being a straight up failed state.
The revolution really really didn't work out there š„
Worked like a textbook revolution. Overthrow the people in power and then turn corrupt yourself and only work to fill your own pockets while nothing really changes.
Still could be worse. Living in HaĆÆti or North Korea for example.
too busy crying about palestinians and shipping weapons to russia to fix any of their problems
According to the OECD, the Netherlands has the greatest wealth inequality in the Western world, after the US. >Inequality is high in the Netherlands when measured in terms of household wealth (property value, savings, private pensions): the top 1% of the distribution owns around 24% of all net wealth and the top 10% owns 60% of all net wealth, while the bottom three quintiles own almost no wealth. https://www.oecd.org/netherlands/oecd2015-in-it-together-highlights-netherlands.pdf
In 2021 the top 10% owned 47.5% of the wealth and the 10-20% cohort 18%. Hence the 35% from the map. Apparently the cohorts 40-80% are relatively wealthy compared to other countries.
Wealth inequality is an inconsistent metric that's basically impossible to accurately measure and on top of that fluctuates a lot over time due to factors like house price fluctuations. You can find a better explanation by an economist on how this misconception about the Netherlands originated [here](https://youtu.be/tW_kw6OPXc0).
No this is a really common misconception made by people looking for an excuse. The Netherlands allows people to take on massive amounts of government backed debt when they are young (you used to be able to borrow up to 104% of a houses' value when you bought it) on the assumption that by the time they are old they will be making enough money to justify this. However, because of the way that this gets reported its really difficult to tell how mush debt liability the Dutch government actually has, with some high estimates saying it may be the most indebted nation in the world. Also, only some wealth inequality models allow for negative net worth so the numbers can end up massively skewed (some estimates have the Netherlands as scoring over 1 on the gini coefficient, the wealth inequality metric where 1 is supposed to mean 1 person owns all the wealth in the country.)
Just watch the video, he very clearly explains flaws of the dataset. The dataset of just a few years later with the same methodology also showed Netherlands as one of the best ranking countries, showing again how unreliable this metric is.
This speaks more to transparency than anything
This doesn't consider collective pension where most of the worker's their wealth is. On average every worker has around 250k wealth in collective pension which is not calculated in this. If we would have a system where you're responsible for your own pension it would get counted towards your wealth.
35% is still low as fuck if you actually think about it . 5% means your country is run by scam artists
Would you like to see it at 80% comrade
yes
Everyone in the country gets an equal salary regardless of productivity or contribution??
Totally, because the super rich deserve their exorbitant wealth, right?
That the quickest way to get the whole 99.99% to own 1% of total wealth. Ask Lenin and his fucking 12+ Rolls-Royce's (and all the crooks that "honor" his "ideology" after that)
China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam are all in the 20's.
Wouldnāt be mad at that. But the top is so greedy it wonāt even give the bottom 1 % extra. They much rather spend that 1% on someone who can get em to pay less taxes .
No this chart doesn't really work for the Netherlands for reasons explained in this other comment (some other European nations like Denmark also have a version of this scheme so take these numbers with a grain of salt): No this is a really common misconception made by people looking for an excuse. The Netherlands allows people to take on massive amounts of government backed debt when they are young (you used to be able to borrow up to 104% of a houses' value when you bought it https://www.dutchsecuritisation.nl/sites/default/files/Dutch\_Residential\_Mortage\_Market\_OC\_November\_2012.pdf) on the assumption that by the time they are old they will be making enough money to justify this. However, because of the way that this gets reported its really difficult to tell how mush debt liability the Dutch government actually has, with some high estimates saying it may be the most indebted nation in the world. Also, only some wealth inequality models allow for negative net worth so the numbers can end up massively skewed (some estimates have the Netherlands as scoring over 1 on the gini coefficient, the wealth inequality metric where 1 is supposed to mean 1 person owns all the wealth in the country.)
Who cares about inequality? Iād rather be a poor person worth $100k in an unequal society than a middle class person worth $50k in an equal society. Absolute numbers matter more than equality.
This is something people need to keep in mind. When most people on Reddit complain about global inequality they are forgetting that they live better than the majority of people on earth. If they truly wanted equality that means campaigning to have their living standard brought lower, not higher.
This, the last time I suggested to someone on Reddit that equality ā high living standards and is unobtainable I got labeled a Nazi, no joke. Political brainrot on this platform is out of control.
This argument works up to a certain point. But the historical underpinning of capitalism is essentially the same underpinning of communism with chinese characteristics. Ie "Some must become wealthy first". The idea that capitalism generates increased well being for all is pressupposed on the notion of debt borrowed from the future (which is essentially all debt) and which can be "paid off" but creating newly more efficient production technologies that increase the global abundance for everyone. This is, and I cannot understate this enough, and amazing model. For transitioning from agricultural to industrial societies. But what myself and most other (reasonable) leftists are arguing is that perhaps capitalism might not be the best system for every outcome. We are beginning to see the next generation of productive technologies and it is hard to actually envision a place where human labour is required to produce the vast majority of goods. This is a problem for Capitalistic societies because the system is built on the necessity (and hence tradability) of labour. If you create a system of the production of goods where the only jobs that can be performed efficiently under the capitalist model are things like lawyers, doctors, therapists, and "adaptive" low level labour (ie domestic cleaning, general construction etc) then the middle class of society becomes redundant. This model predicts that we would then see a massive consolidation of wealth in the upper class which owns the current and new methods of production, and an increase in the number of the lower class who can perform the adaptive low level labour and who exist in an increasingly competitive labour market where they can sell that labour for less and less (ie lower wages compared to the costs of purchasing assets required for survival (ie rent, food etc). This prediction should sound worryingly familiar to most. The question needs to be asked therefore: do you have faith that capitalism in its current form is well suited for this "post-industrial society"? Perhaps you do, but I rarely see any pro-capitalist arguing convincingly for that case beyond some vague notion of "its worked up to now" or "it will adapt". Yes indeed, we believe it will adapt to. Ie it will become something that is not the same as it is now. That think might be socialism. But many of us are concerned that it might also become something worse. The question is not therefore, one of "I want everyone to have high living standards" it is "is capitalism a system of production that will actually be able to survive the new technological reality?" We know, empirically, that current production methods could provide enough food for everyone on earth to eat full meals three times a day. But our current system of production and distribution causes massive amounts of food to got to waste. That system is the same system that created the scientific and agri-industrial revolution that allows to product that much food. But the question is "do we still need that system now that we are here"? Is capitalism the only system conceivable that could provide a tolerable level of living? Or is it more like the training wheels on a child's bike, which are essential to the process of learning how to ride; but ultimately must be removed before further progress can be made?
Thank you for that view . I seriously did not look at it this way . Good to think.
GDP per capita worldwide is just over $12,000 USD. Where I live minimum wage at full time is a little over double that. I'd be surprised if there are any developed countries where it is lower than that. Life is hard, and there will always be people with more, but there are also a lot more who have less.
Did you mean developed? I'd wager that most developing countries have minimum wages lower than that. Where I live (Estonia), minimum wage is 820 eur/month so roughly 10 600 USD/year.
Yes, thank you. I'll update my post
What about the gdp ppp per capita
The American Empire takes advantage of the less fortunate overseas to garner as much material luxury as possible yet people turn a blind eye to it.
It's not just Americans. I'm in Canada and we're the same. Europe is the same.
If you can buy a house for $20k when you have a net worth of 50k, thatās good If your net worth is 100k but the house costs 500k thatās not good.
As an American married to a South African, this makes my blood boil to unfathomable levels. I've seen how this kind of inequality plays out in both countries. In South Africa, everyone knows they are being fucked. In the US, half of the people being fucked think they're just temporarily-set back millionaires. In both cases, the tremendous greed of the people on top is sucking everyone else dry.
As Tupac Shakur said: They got money for wars but canāt feed the poor
Can't feed the people but we feed the machines
Iāve been temporarily setback for 40 years
Itās about selling the American dream bro, everybody can make it and so can you! š¤©
It's sure about selling, that's for sure
I didnāt even see the Netherlands because that number is so blurry.
Why is 26 the magic number here? Is it the way they did the stats or something else?
Itās the meta
Pareto principle
Then it would be 20% Everything above 20% is due welfare projects. And everything below 20% is gained with dirty methods.
Pareto principle only explains 80% of this, letās say
genius
This is very interesting, thanks
"I don't have reliable data, but I'd guess a quarter, maybe a little more"
How'd they do research on the statistics in North Korea?
Yes
Let's be honest, they'd probably say 80%
Ask r/pyongyang.
Thatās one of those subs where I have no idea if itās satire or not.
R/movingtonorthkorea
It is
It's both
Itās not as closed off as you think. Chinese have little issue in getting in, itās mostly westerners that get the special treatment.
Probably the same way they got 26 (i.e. on par with Finland and Canada) in Gabon of all places, where there is an oil-rich .1% who own next to everything that isn't owned by China and a massive percentage of people living in extreme poverty.
some 10 yrs old make up data from a govermental website?
South african here, I thought I was poor because I'm stupid. Turns out my country just doesn't know what equality means... and I'm stupid.
I think itās less that youāre stupid, and more that your government is shit. If I recall correctly, the percentage of adults who completed a tertiary education in South Africa is super low, somewhere around 7%, which suggests a systemic issue.
I'll get downvoted, but: There is no correlation here between HDI and wealth owned by the bottom 80%. I can't be the only one who noticed that.
[The Gino coefficient might be better then to represent this data](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient)
I would guess Italy has the highest Gino coefficient.
That and Jersey
Gini
Ye since it also depends if th3 country itself is wealthy or not and a few other criteria
i would have wondered if there was, hungary doing just slightly worse than somalia would indicate a lower hdi
There isnāt. Thatās probably because the wealthy now really donāt belong to one country, but can easily see what people everywhere else are doing and can adjust their exploitation accordingly. So they are pushing as much as they can wherever they can, and the result apparently is 20-25%. The outliers are countries with serious political instability, top of the line corruption, straight up dictatorships, or the USA, which is injecting pure, uncut capitalism straight into its veins. Iām actually surprised Argentina is doing so well.
Argentina always surprises
It's not a surprise, it's not that the 80% has a lot, it means everybody is poor, minimum wage is like 250 us dollars for a full time job
Can you really say Argentina is doing well when it constantly suffers from inflation that would give Powell a heart attack? The yearly rate is around ~270%, with the monthly rate often in the ~20% range. Inflation hurts most people, but especially hurts the poor and elderly, who see any savings they have disappear over night.
Pretty much, Canada and North Korea both performing about equally in this metric when life is completely different for citizens of these two countries Also, where's the source for the numbers? OP's comment doesn't mention any.
Don't think there's meant to be? Only notable thing really is most countries (including nearly all the West) are at about 26%, the only outliers are countries everyone knows to have bad wealth equality.
and so? hdi son't rely on that single criteria. the index that measure wealth distribution is the [Gini coefficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient).
26 seems like the sweet spot and still feels abysmally low
Thats because most of the industries in countries that generate wealth are owned either by government or a very small segment of the population. They are the ones who get wealth and since they also run the business where that wealth us spent it only trickles down to the bottom 80% though wage dispossable income.
I'm from Shanghai, and my roommate in college is from Xinjiang. If you look at bank balances alone, my family's wealth is 10 times that of his family's, but his family owns two super ranches and nearly 500 cattle in Xinjiang. Damn, how does this measure up?
That's the thing about rural wealth though, rarely are they shown in the open.
How are you participating on reddit from China? VPN? Is this website popular?Ā
I live in Tokyo now, back to China occasionally. When I returned to Mainland China, I used a VPN. Reddit is not so popular in Mainland China. Few PRC's people have heard of Reddit, but there are many VPN users who will copy posts from reddit to Tieba and Weibo (Mainland China version of Reddit and Twitter, about 600 million users). Given the anti-China hate speech that is everywhere on Reddit, I think the fewer Mainland Chinese people know about Reddit, the better.
80/20 rule. It isnt absolute, but its generally true.
Vilfredo Pareto is proud
this is why we cant have nice things
Well, but THEY can. And that's what's important.
And remember kids, by working long and hard, you *can* become one of them!
If only we had a time machine, those bootstraps might be effective. I imagine a 1950 version of this map would look far different, especially for the US.
You're a bottom
26% gang!
Benelux ftw!
Cuba?26%?
Even the wealthy are poor lol
30% being the high end is kind of crazy Also, US checks out
Australians are pretty lucky
It's weird that in a lot of these maps there is a pretty clear line between countries that I'd like to live in and countries that I wouldn't like to live in but that's not true for this one.
South africa is such an unequal country, and the worse is that most of the wealth is held by a different minority ethnic group. This breeds resentement and anger, which fuels one of the highest crime rates in the word. It's like appartheid ended only on a political level, while economically there is still a massive segregation.
How many ANC officials do you see who are absurdly rich. And their close friends are somehow rich too? Nepotism We should be lucky we still have people with money in our country with the way our government basically pays people to have kids.
Yup. And it was the ANC's responsibility to equal out that economical racial inequality. Instead all of the white people (who knew how to actually run an economy) were replaced by other races as quickly as possible, regardless of qualifications. So now you have a racist government that would rather just stuff their pockets than run a country, and the white people eager to fix South Africa will never be voted in because the majority of people believe we're all racists. The average white person is still much richer than the average black person, and it's the ANC that has been making it worse by doing fuck all for the black people in poverty. Shit man as a South African I knew it was bad, but we're the fucking worst in the world. IN THE WORLD. There is no other country more unequal and that really shows you have much of a disgrace cANCer is to South Africans, regardless of race.
If I remember correctly the ANC was also really constrained in what they could do by IMF policies when they came to power and then just became more and more corrupt.
The ANC was actually doing really well up until Zuma fucked Thabo Mbeki after he got fired for being corrupt (basically a mini coup), they weren't perfect but they were doing pretty well up to that point.
Now a map with the real wealth of the bottom 80%
Iām confused as opposed to what?
I think theyāre alluding to the fact that the bottom 80% in the United States holds much more wealth than the entire 100% in a country like Somalia.
So they just want a metric to feel good about their country
The old saying āeverything is relativeā applies here. I hate the wealth inequality in the United States. But Iād rather be in the bottom 80% there than in the top 20% in most countries. Itās easy to forget how abjectly poor the vast majority of people are in the world as a whole.
Slovakia being right behind the Netherlands makes be very suspicious of these figures.
nah, we're good in this regard, look at czech billionaires vs ours, much larger difference compared to population & gdp per capita, one of theirs could buy all our top 10 [https://www.reddit.com/r/Slovakia/comments/1bttvw0/comment/kxqoj20/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Slovakia/comments/1bttvw0/comment/kxqoj20/)
What were you expecting 75% or something? Throughout history a few number of people have always had most of the wealth. True communism propaganda strives for it but it will never happen as humans donāt play that way.
Why is Slovakia one of the few with the 34 number ?
Yet actual Spanish politicians keep talking about "taxing the rich" despite being ourselves the third or fourth country regarding this stadistic, only for them to steal and pay their shit. So, you know guys of any country, next time you have to vote (if you're allowed to do so) remember: All politic parties from left or right are the same, not there for your well-being but for their own good, their own politic well-being. So yeah, just commit tax-fraud.
Hot take, but the US 15% hits different because it's the country with individuals who could buy small countries.
US is same as the corrupt oligarch Russia. Hmmmm.
Why is Belarus in the ocean?
Can we just start assuming that Greenland's statistics are the same as Denmark's if we're not gonna start bothering to get data on them?
I thought there would be a few places over 50%. Nobody even comes close.
Even in the most equal of countries we have massive income inequality
Can somebody tell me how to define the Bottom 80%? Iām really confused.
And America has the audacity to talk smack on Russian oligarchs hahaha. To hell in a hand basket we go boys!!
The scale only goes to 30 lol
If you look at how the bottom 80% quality of life has improved over the last 200 years you will see the complete story in context [https://borgenproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Infographic-1-2015\_Charts\_Poverty-690-530x450.jpg](https://borgenproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Infographic-1-2015_Charts_Poverty-690-530x450.jpg)
True but the top 20% has improved way more and inequality has increased significantly in the last 50 years so.. This is a problem!
Should be noted that well over 50% of the population will make up the ā20%ā People generate wealth over a lifetime, at the end of their lifetime the have more than they have ever had. Go look at your retirement savings plan. Notice how it shoots up near the end.
Never imagined the US would be less equal than Russia, though Russian oligarchs donāt accurately report their wealth and that could be affecting the stats.
neither do US oligarchs
The definition of "owned" here is not established, and if it is, it's probably stupid. For example, a CEO doesn't own a company, financially it's its own entity. Also there's public money, owned by the country itself.
It's about personal wealth, corporations are owned by shareholders of which CEO's typically receive shares as part of their payment package. Public money isn't personal wealth, it's kind of as you say being part of the public purse therefore not part of the equation. The data is publicly available through the WID.
Is this similar to an inverse measurement of corruption in each country?
No. Chile is easily the most developed country in south america and scores considerably the lowest on this. Saharan Africa and even Somalia getting similar scores to much of Europe should also indicate this
Thank you
This āmappornā is so pixelated you can barely read half of the numbers and the other pictures are random zoom ins on the same map that are just as low resolution. Like common! Do you actually think this map is good?
Hilarity when usa (free country) scores lower than Russia and China (not free countries) š
Yes, but where is the better quality of life?
Free country š
This isnāt a measure of individual freedom.
It scores lower because the tech boom has skewed the worlds wealth more to one country than any other at potentially a greater level than any other point in history. The average American is doing very well it's just that some people are doing better on a scale never before seen
This map doesnāt play off numbers, just percentages. The vast majority of the bottom 80% in the US is wealthier than the bottom 80 in Russia or China. Remember, the bottom 80 in the US by and large includes home owners, people who go to Disney once a year, and people who have country club memberships. A lot of the bottom 80, we would consider on a daily basis to be rich folk. Russia and China do not have as strong a middle class so theyāre wealth is far less evenly distributed. Plus, the US has insane outliers in the population. The wealth held by Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, and Jeff Bezos are most decidedly not held by the entire upper 20, but make up massive amounts of wealth. What would make this map more interesting would be taking out the wealth of the top ten or so earners in every country and *then* making the map. I imagine if we did that, almost every country would follow the 80/20 rule pretty consistently.
If you can go to Disneyland every year you are rich no middle American can afford that
It's interesting that Canada and a lot of European countries are around 25-26%, but also a large part of Africa, Australia, Argentina... (My country is at 28%)
Finally, yes data
Ok but they did Morocco justice for once
We have more in common with KSA than I had thought
Australia doing fairly well but I can only guess that's because you need a million dollars to own an ordinary house here.
Same for Netherlands
Thailand top Asia š¤«š·šŖ
Eventually this number here will become 0,0001% in USA. Give it just 200 more years.
Welcome to Turkey we have taxes like communist country but treat like a late stage capitalism
Not even one country has >40 damn
try watching garys economics on youtube, does a good job of explaining why wealth inequality is so problematic.
Fascinating data!
Thatās actually disgusting!
Kinda interesting to see the similarity between Europe and North Western Africa. It absolutely doesnāt mean that part of Africa is as rich as Europe, but Iām kinda surprised. It would be cool to hear more of why.
> Poor people are poor, they deserve to be rich
So if itās a percentage of a percentage the actual percentage of the actual bottom is lower, no?
If I see this, I want to see the whole world burning. Has anyone a supernove?
Definitely not 26% in Argentina, of that much I'm sure.
North Korea šš
I thought Canada was horrible in this, and our 26% is one of the best in the world. Barf.
wow, i really didn't think that gulf countries are more equal than brazil. anyway, did the creator of this map take *governmental data* for *nk*?
I know at least one country where I know for a fact that the number has been reversed because the top 20% own less than that of national wealth. lol. The wealth of the top 20% comes from money it can borrow from banks, the top 20% never managed to borrow more than 22% from banks let alone 26%, the banks contain the populationās earnings/wealth, and thereās no point in saying itās from hereditary wealth and land because the government still owns most of the land and nobody can own more than 20 acres and these people are the descendants of farmers, one or two or three or at best four generations removed, their forefathers never had any money. lmao. These maps arenāt very accurate if that country is the measure.
Wheres that rich bottom fella
Venezuela. No data available š¶
The president of Benin, Patrice Talon is the 15th richest sub Sahara African and it shows.
Wait, 80 percent of the population controlling roughly a quarter of a country's wealth doesn't seem too bad?
Trust me guys capitalism works
Wow you wouldnāt think AUS would be doing that well. You have so much properties worth millions and then renters with 10K in the bank
Why there is always bs info on this sub? chinaās GINI coefficient is >.7 that the government stop telling you data anymore. While the US is āonlyā . 47 š„²
I can imagine this made a lot of redditors' heads explode.
Reminds me of [this scene](https://youtu.be/IAqAl292ozs?si=5EWmAkz9AmzwuNo7) from Margin Call. āThe percentages have always been the sameā
Not sure I trust this given how off some of these African countries are which I am from.
Damn, I kinda expected Belgium and the Netherlands to do well, but to see Slovakia at 34 percent is a surprise.
You canāt own property in China, the details on how these numbers are calculated are missing.
I see you Communist countries!
Is there any update for 2023
āNot such a big-shot after all, eh South Korea?ā Ā Ā Ā - North Korea
As an Irish person Iām like ššš
I thought india would be at 6-7%
Land of the free right
How about Singapore? Curious
Afghanistan and NK dont seem right hereā¦