$50,000 a day

Data compiled and reported by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Spend $50 a day and live well.  That's normal for the wealthy.

So, if you spend $500 or $5,000 a day, it starts to get really strange.

When you reach $50,000, that's what you'd have to spend every day for fifty years to use up a billion dollars.

You could use that kind of wealth to influence government and manipulate the marketplace.  That way, you get millions more, and you can pump more wealth out of the world.  (We called them robber barons back in the early days of industry.  Today, they're the wealthy elite.)

Or you could use just what you need for a healthy life and use the rest to help others.  Some folks do that, and it makes a difference.

Is there any good path for the billionaires?  So far, 154 have pledged to give away at least half of their wealth for the common good.  Good for them.  

     ________________________

They taught us about giving at church when I was a kid, and I thought it was just another religious rule.  Later, I discovered that most such 'rules' are practical advice for a healthy heart and that giving frees you from the insanity of always wanting more.  It brings balance to life, it frees you from the trap of fear, and it opens so many doors.  (Even a few billionaires have figured it out.)  Funny how that works. I guess there's more to faith than just being religious.  😏

__________________________________________________________

Spend $5 a day and survive, barely.  That's common, by the way, but it shouldn't be.  Incredible wealth flows up from lower echelons to the coffers of the wealthy.

The world needs to change, and in fact it is changing.  Extreme poverty (less than $2 per day) is declining -- that's improvement, but it's still a long way from being out of poverty.  Half of child mortality is from malnourishment;  22.9% of children under five are stunted.  More than half the world lives in significant deprivation.  

Justice and equality, national priorities, distribution and conservation, all must change, and most will of necessity.  Meanwhile, we have many opportunities to make a difference.

As for the 1,900 remaining billionaires and 14,600,000 millionaires ... we'll see.  
   Then there are the corporations whose only motive is profit.  
      They're richer than any individual and some are bigger than countries.

A Child's Future

Getting by or getting better, what occupies our days?  Life fills up quickly with mind-numbing routine, attending to work and meals and bills and kids and homework.  Days pass, and months, just getting by.

How might a child be inspired to greatness while living in such humdrum? 

Practically speaking, it won't happen.  Unless ...

Children will aspire to what they see in people they know and respect.  A good heart is a great role-model.  Encouragement and affirmation are powerful shapers.  Meaningful conversations (not lectures) about real life are powerful, and they're inspired by our honest efforts to learn and to become better people.

Education begins at home; core values are established there.  Schools often have difficulty supporting those values.  Issues of principle and character are furiously assaulted in the social arena. (ref)(ref)  It's a high-risk and difficult path to thoughtful adulthood; not everyone does well. (ref)

Teens are in the most turbulent period of identity development.  As they begin making their own choices, our best offering is to be an anchor of principle and values and acceptance.  Pray for them every day and for your own journey as well.

Circumstances can make it difficult for us to help our children mature; difficult, but perhaps not impossible.  Rich or poor, this culture or country or some other, who we are will still have the most impact on who they become.  Their vision for the future rises out of our vision for life and how earnestly we pursue it.  

__________________________________________________________________

Children's ethics, principles, convictions, values, conscience, character, clarity, morality, and life goals come first from ours.  

The Race to Ignorance

Race issues are emotionally charged.
We should instead perhaps categorize ourselves by ear size.  
Or freckle count.
Is that reasonable?

The young lady's photo was originally part of a campaign against racism and prejudice.  It

was stolen by the racist organization, Stormfront.org, and used for the opposite purpose.

Their use (left) was posted claiming there's a world genocide against whites ...

Modern science has provided the truth about racial differences.  There aren't any.  We're all 99.9% the same, genetically speaking, just human.* 

(The few visible differences have been determined to be no more significant than freckles.)

Skin color, for just one example, is a response to environment rather than ancestry.  If a white population migrated from Canada to the equator to live in the sunshine (and somehow remained isolated from other populations), their common skin color would permanently darken in response to increased ultraviolet exposure.  The trait would change in a hundred generations or so, just the blink of an eye, anthropologically speaking ... white to black, just by environment.

Or vice versa -- that's how white people appeared in Europe despite being dark skinned when their migration began from the tropical regions.

The pure white (Aryan) race of Nazi propaganda never existed, anywhere.  Every population and all individuals share a common ancestry, and suggesting we segregate ourselves based on skin color or eye shape is perhaps as meaningful as making that same distinction based on ear shape and freckle count.

So why do we struggle with racial prejudice?  What's the root of wanting to identify ourselves as separate and distinct from others?

• Why do we have an 'in-crowd' in high school?  
• Why do we have social classes based on wealth?  
• Does in-group against out-group qualify as collective bullying?
  What part is played by selfishness, hubris, anger, insecurity, fear?
  What part is played by our discomfort with a more complex world than we can easily grasp?
• What legitimate justification exists for prejudicial discrimination?

At every level from individual to global, the motivation appears to be the same.  Economic, ideological, and political competition all follow the same logic of us vs. them; the results are divisive and deadly.

Recent research in genetics unveils a wonderfully complex mapping of thousands of physiological elements, none of which provide any meaningful way to racially separate one group from another.  We're all 99.9% the same, genetically speaking, just human.*

_____________________________________________

*Ignorance = lack of information

Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real.

Discussions of racial difference often point to gang culture, crime rates, and poor educational achievement as proof of white superiority.  Research (gangs, crime, education) shows such differences arise from imposed poverty, discrimination, and denied opportunity.   
What we do and don't know

Astroturfing!

Astroturfing - the practice of faking a grassroots consensus while hiding the sponsorship behind the message.  It creates the impression of widespread support (where little exists) in order to popularize and exaggerate credibility.

... the creation of an artificial grassroots buzz favoring a viewpoint, i.e. lies, propaganda, brainwashing. ...



Examples:

Tobacco Industry: in the 90's, they funded the National Smoker's Alliance to generate what looked like public support for smoker's rights against legislation that would dampen their business.  It was fake support, of course, and the industry knew it.

By the time they were forced to come forward with the truth, that smoking “kills more people than murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol combined,” it was too late for the millions they'd killed ... deliberately, in defense of their profits.

Politics: GOPTeamLeader.com (now closed) offered a tool which sent a user’s letter to the editor to dozens of newspapers under different randomly generated names.  In 2003, virtually identical letters that were essentially lists of GOP talking points were published nearly simultaneously in over 70 newspapers across the US, creating the impression of broad support for controversial GOP policies.  Similar campaigns were used by GeorgeWBush.com.  

Such tactics are not exclusive to the right; the liberal website MoveOn.org used the same tactic the very next year.  Letters to the editor don't affect much these days, so there are twitter bots that fake and forward multiple thousands of generated messages.

Many organizations in the Tea Party movement are considered astroturfed, with direct connections to right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, and their activities controlled by wealthy supporters or the GOP.

The DNC under the control of the Clinton campaign persuaded Democrat voters that the choice of candidates rested completely on transparent process.  Not quite true, as we now understand.  By formal agreement, DNC staff and policy required approval by the Clinton campaign prior to implementation for more than a year before the primaries.

Environment: Since 1997 the Koch Brothers have spent over a hundred-million dollars funding supposed scientific organizations.  The groups are masked as think tanks whose purpose is to spread false ideas, to attack climate change scientists, and to popularize climate-change denial.  

Exxon has recently acknowledged that climate change has begun, due in large part to the burning of fossil fuels.  They had attempted to hide or obscure that truth for decades using deliberate misrepresentation detailed in a Harvard analysis and report, using non-peer-reviewed studies and editorial-style advertisements ('advertorials') challenging the science.  Exxon was aggressively and knowingly misrepresenting the results of their own scientific research across four decades, just like the tobacco industry did.  Residual misinformation generated by the oil industry persists in public thinking, even after having been repeatedly discredited.

... and anyone can buy thousands of 'likes' for their web page.

Today, it appears that the internet and media have become, among other things, a tool to shape us according to someone else's plan.  More often than not, the motive is money and power at the top of the pyramid.

____________________________________
Apparently, Governments also do it.
Then there's Gaslighting.

It's hard!

For some folks, it's automatically going to be a hard battle, one almost impossible to win.  Reaching the goal just isn't going to happen without extraordinarily difficult tasks, choices, and sacrifice.

Being rich apparently insulates us from reality, from the real world, from God's view of things and people, even from our own children.

This young fellow came to the teacher and asked what he needed to do to finish well.  He was told to love God and obey the rules.  The guy said he'd done all of that, and the teacher told him to prove it, but he couldn't or perhaps wouldn't.  His wealth and position, it seems, had tainted his thinking, his view of himself, his comfort and luxury and future. He couldn't bring himself to consider changing course to a better purpose.

It's hard, the teacher said, for a rich person to finish well. Really hard. Later, the teacher's friends were struggling to understand.  "If that rich fellow can't do it, how can we or anyone?"   There is a way, but it's perhaps not obvious once wealth and class obscure things.  

He meant what he said, I think.  And if I live in America, chances are I'm rich, maybe fifty times richer than most others in the world.  Is that a problem?   What do I not see, what have I missed?  How much of my life is spent on the wrong things?

And as for that kingdom he was talking about ... what are the chances the richest country in the world, a wealth-focused culture and economy, is headed in the right direction?  

If the path I'm on seems easy, it might need a critical review.   

Is the goal clear?

The Threshold for Participation

A poor person in the U.S. is richer than half of the folks in the world.  True or not?

Because there's more to the question, perhaps not actually true.

The more complex the economy, the more it costs you to live in it.  That cost is the threshold for participation and the cutoff for survival.

The conservative view here is that the poor live rather well compared to the rest of the world, so we needn't worry much about them.  The reality, the top quintile household income rose significantly in recent decades while the lowest made no progress or lost ground. 

There's more, if you want to know.

More than half of the world lives at low income.  Few have regular jobs.  Most survive by fishing or small plot farms and flocks, perhaps a little trade and selling on the street.  They walk to the river for water.  There may not be public transportation or stores or health care nearby.

As an economy grows, it updates those rivers and footpaths and gardens with municipal water systems, city streets, and grocery stores, but living there means you pay your share of the cost.  

In any economy, if your contribution falls below that threshold, you're disenfranchised or perhaps homeless and on the street along with your family, begging.

The poverty line in the U.S. is indeed middle-income compared to the whole world.  That's because basic participation in the economy costs much more than in India or sub-Saharan Africa.  Here, if you don't have a cell-phone and a vehicle, you'll not likely be able to hold a job.  If you don't have a computer and internet, you're kids will have difficulty getting an education, and you'll have difficulty keeping up with your bills and finances.  A good diet, health care, shoes and clothes, soap and toothpaste ... making your way forward requires the ability to participate in the economy in which you live.

The GAP - The more useful measure for this issue is inequality.  When the privileged extract wealth from the economy at the expense of the rest, the result is a widening gap, or inequality.  The flow of wealth from bottom to top fosters persistent corruption in business and government, and deprivation below.  That's within a single country or economy.

Globally, countries can face the same difficulties.  There's a threshold for a country's participation in the global economy.  Poorer countries struggle and extractive trade policies are deadly.  Western countries have extracted wealth from African countries for centuries, for example, resulting in a deadly inequality and extraordinary difficulties for countries and their people.

Progress goes disproportionately to the top of the economic pyramid.  At the bottom, millions fall below the threshold for survival every year.  

Do your own inquiry - Human Development, extractive economics, and the GAP

Or look at fair trade vs. free trade, archenemies in international politics and competitive economics.  If international trade is just a competitive sport, then workers being abused and destitute isn't a problem.
Then there's the question of minimum wage vs. fair wage vs. living wage.

______________________________________________

(Smallholder farms depend on family labor for food and income. There are 460 to 500 million smallholder farms that grow 80 percent of food consumed in low income countries.)

______________________________________________

Change Makers and Help Bringers  -- The rich world's troubles fill our headlines, yet a more important reality is the yawning gap between the world's haves and have-nots. The average American income is 50 times that of a typical Afghan and 100 times that of a Zimbabwean. Despite two centuries of economic growth, over a billion people remain in dire poverty. We've yet a long way to go.