Hunger of Injustice

Every year, Forbes magazine publishes a list of individuals in the world who are worth at least one billion dollars. In the 2008 edition, there were a record number of individuals who made the billion-dollar cut. However, I would like to focus more on the other end of the spectrum-the Forbes 1.5 Billion. They are the super-poor, and while they may seem out of proportion with the Forbes Billionaires, the two groups are, in fact, aligned. In the most recent FORBES global tally, 1125 billionaires had an estimated combined wealth of $4.4 trillion. Let us assume that the billionaires earn a 12% annual return (The combined wealth of The Forbes 400 has been growing at an average pace of 12% a year over the past five years. This figure reflects not only appreciation but also the discovery of new fortunes; it does not subtract out inflation.) That would be a little more than $528 billion per year in income. Now, the world's poorest one and a half billion people live at or below $1 per day ($1 per day income is agreed internationally to be the upper limit of “extreme poverty”). Let us assume, somewhat optimistically, that these poorest 1.5 billion have a per capita income of $350 a year (making slightly less that $1 a day on average), making their combined income $525 billion a year, about the same as the Billionaires. Voilà! The gap in per capita income of the world's super-poor and super-rich is a neat one and a third million to one.

Now, what connection does an eighteen-year-old, American, middle-class, caucasian male have to the tales of the super-rich and super-poor? In my junior year, I took American Studies Seminar, a double-block, double-credit class that combines English 11 Honors and U.S. History Honors. This was a very hands-on class; at one point, we had a mock trial over whether or not the United States was guilty of imperialism. I was a prosecuting lawyer, one of four, and we successfully (though surprisingly) convinced the jury of our peers that the U.S. was in fact guilty. However, imperialism is not the topic of my essay. One of my duties as a prosecuting lawyer was to present a witness to help prove the U.S. guilty. My witness was Bill Gates, whose significant philanthropy made him a likely candidate for being a witness for the Defense. My train of thought was to show the insignificance of Gates' donations in comparison to his total estimated worth. My research of the super-rich led me into some very disturbing territory surrounding our ever widening rich-poor gap. I am horrified by the impact our mindset of “making money is all-important” has had, and is having, on the welfare of the world.

How is the welfare of the world suffering? The extent of poverty is magnified by the gap between those who suffer from it and those who can stop that suffering but don't. Let's reiterate my math: the gap in per capita income of the world's super-poor and super-rich is a neat one and a third million to one. How does this statistic show suffering? Well, for starters, if only one average billionaire donated his/her annual income for just the year 2008, and that donation was spread out evenly, then the yearly income would double for 1.33 million people! Imagine what good could be done if the super-rich committed entirely to ending poverty. Here's my solution: when one's net worth reaches $1 million, one can stop working, and live easily off of interest, investments, and smart spending. So if the Billionaires of the world only kept $1 million each and lumped the remaining money to be donated, that lump sum would equal $4.399 trillion. According to Bankrate Inc., if that $4.399 trillion was placed in an insured CD account, pledged to be untouched for five years, the interest rate currently would be about five percent annually. After those five years, the sum would be increased to $5.614 trillion, purely by interest. Split that between the estimated three billion people that live on less than two dollars a day, and each person would get $1871. That's more than a 300% increase over their previous $600 a year. That would go an enormous way to ending not only world hunger, but poverty in general (defined internationally as making a dollar a day or less) would be eliminated. Let me repeat that: international poverty would be eliminated. Yes, life would still be hard for the poorest people, but there would be breathing room. They would have a small savings that could be used to start making money, as opposed to always struggling just to catch up.

Now, I am not so naïve to think that the world's billionaires would give up their fortunes, but the fact that ending international poverty is possible, yet not realistic, almost makes it worse for me. The whole idea of the super-rich strikes me as immensely immoral, and that immorality is magnified by those on the opposite side of the monetary spectrum. I see no satisfactory reason to hold on to the obscene amounts of money that the super-rich are unable to part with. Greed, pride, poor self-esteem: none are good reasons to horde boundless riches from the truly poor. Over 4 billion people―two-thirds of the world's population―live on $4.00 a day or less. Two-thirds of the world lives on less money than we spend for just one gallon of gas! It simply makes me sick.

So what is the moral of this story? What conclusion have I drawn, or point have I made? Our lives are led with the assumption, if not motto, that making money is all-important. There is nothing farther from the truth. When just 1,125 people can end not only world hunger, but international poverty, I think it's time to remind ourselves what is really important in life. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson didn't say that only Americans were endowed with these unalienable Rights, nor did he say that these Rights are limited only to the wealthy. All men, men referring to human not male, are created equal, and all have the right to live, to be free, and to pursue happiness. Life with the sole purpose of staying alive despite circumstances is not a life. Liberty includes freedom from starvation and malnutrition. One cannot pursue Happiness when all energy is used pursuing the next meal. I know you're asking yourself, what can one person do? Buy fewer of the things you simply want. Create energy-saving habits, therefore money-saving habits. Our society is one geared toward the consumer―if you want it, buy it. What we truly need to do is think, instead, about those less fortunate, those four billion people living on less than $4 a day. Do you really need that 64-inch TV, that souped-up laptop, or that new X-Box? Of course you don't. None of us do. We should be conservative with spending our money, and instead strive to donate as much as we can, as often as we can. A Salvation Army advertisement says, “Don't spend two dollars to dry clean a shirt. Donate it to the Salvation Army instead. They'll clean it and put it on a hanger. Next morning buy it back for seventy-five cents.” Just like this example of charity, there are many simple, easy ways to save and donate money. All you are sacrificing is perhaps a little time and a little effort. We are obliged to give to charity, because we are able to. No demographic needs our charity more than those who cannot afford their next meal. We, as the most privileged people in the world, must stand up and fight for those who cannot get up off their feet for want of nourishment. We must speak for those who are mute with swollen, bleeding gums and rotting teeth from malnutrition. We must fight for those who have all but given up fighting; those who will succumb to the fatigue that comes after missing several meals because the coin purse is still empty; those 25,000 people who die every day from hunger and hunger-related causes. We each must do our part to prevent the rich-poor gap from getting any bigger. Each person doesn't need to sell all their possessions and donate the money to the poor, while becoming poor themselves. In the words of Mother Theresa, “If you can't feed a hundred people, then just feed one.” Then one by one, dollar by dollar, day by day, the tide will turn, until we can truly make the world a poverty-free, hunger-free place to live.