More than two billion people worldwide remained in poverty during 2006, mostly in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia, according to the latest World Bank figures.
To be successful in overturning our elitist plutocratic system we should add economic apartheid to our semantic arsenal. Better than economic inequality, economic injustice and class warfare, because apartheid is loaded with richly deserved negative emotions. Sadly, in South Africa, economic apartheid has taken over from racial apartheid.
Americans overwhelmingly say the growing gap between rich and poor has become a serious national concern, a sentiment that may bolster Democrats' plans to narrow the income divide when they take control of Congress.
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.
Economic inequality has now been increasing in the United States for more than 30 years, and for much of that time its causes seemed fairly clear. Computers and other new technologies replaced many blue-collar workers, undercutting the bargaining power of those workers. Global trade was doing the same by allowing companies to make their products elsewhere. Highly educated workers, on the other hand, were able to work more efficiently — and thus make more money — thanks to new technology, and to play on a bigger stage thanks to globalization. This was the story of inequality from the mid-1970s through the late 1990s.
Globalization has helped raise the standard of living for many people worldwide. It has also, however, driven many deeper into poverty. Small businesses and third world countries are not capable of updating their technology as often as their larger, wealthier counterparts. Unable to compete with multinational firms and wealthy nations, small businesses and third world countries are forced to do business locally, not growing and reaching their full potential.
