Big Question: If the 1 percent had less, would the 99 percent really have more?

Curiosity contributor Bambi Turner researched the topic and here's what she found.

In 2008, the top 1 percent of the U.S. population earned 21 percent of the nation's total income, while roughly half of total income went to the wealthiest 10 percent of citizens. This means that the remaining 90 percent of the population took home only about 50 percent of all of the nation's earnings [source: Rampell].

Could the extra wealth of the richest be used to make a difference in the lives of the poorest? Or are poverty and suffering universal, no matter how wealth is distributed? In social democracies like Sweden and Denmark, the richest 10 percent earn just 5 times as much as the poorest 10 percent. In the U.S., the richest 10 percent earn more than 15 times what the poorest 10 percent earn.

But personal wealth is not the only measure of one's material quality of life. Thanks to many social programs, all but 5 to 6 percent of Nordic people have their basic needs met, while 12 to 20 percent of people in the U.S. and southern Europe lack such essentials as food, housing, health care and education [source: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development].

This suggests that policies using wealth redistribution may not necessarily bring greater income equality, but may help improve the quality of life for those who are struggling with basic needs.

In the video below, Bran Ferren ponders whether U.S. economic policies are sustainable.

Comments
Comments

Comments ( )