Poor Vs Rich 123 Go
Marie Ota
LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
I was watching this video forwarded to me on whatsapp this afternoon. The image was that of an Amazon Prime delivery van being broken down. That not the problem, the disturbing image was that people who were passing by stopped to plunder the vehicle and walk away with whatever they could lay their hands on. Now these people do not appear to be people starving and therefore stealing a packet of bread to survive, they all seem to be driving fancy cars or well dressed with fancy clothes and footwear which means that they are not poor or impoverished in the conventional sense. So why then are they trying to take something that does not belong to them esp when their survival does not depend on it.
On the other hand i came across a newspaper article of wherein an Autodriver in a tier two city retraced his customer who had left a bundle of cash( Rs 1.00 Lakh) accidently during his auto ride which the auto driver discovered later. The Auto driver could have well taken it for himself, am sure thats a lot of money to help either close the auto loan or provide for some other financial need of his. However he made the effort to retrace the passenger and return his money to him. So what goes on in the mind of this man who may actually need this money but refuses to take it as he does not see it as earned by him and hence not his.
Rich Poor Men, these people are financially well to do and not necessarily impoverished men in the conventional sense. These are people who have all that life has to provide them with. Yet in their minds they carry a sense of impoverishment. They are constantly seeking a little extra. Nothing wrong with that except that they seek it irrespective of the means to the end. So many a times their means would be unfair and unreasonable. So these are the people who jump out of their cars to pick up a parcel that is meant for someone else, they are also probably aware that the item that they are picking up is infact not needed by them, yet the fact that there is an opportunity to gain something however unfairly it seems, matters little to them. All that matters is if they are gaining even a little. I call them Rich, but poor men. In fact they deserve to be called Impoverished Men. How can you respect yourself if you steal someone's food while you are already well fed ?
On the other hand the Poor Rich Men are the people like the Autodriver, who is poor in the traditional sense, probably he does not dine in a fine restaurant with his family or that he does not go to the multiplex with his family to catch the latest Hollywood blockbuster. So yes he is poor in that sense of the word. But he is also rich in the sense that he has the abundance in his mind that he is able to differentiate between what belongs to him and what does not. Based on this clear distinction, he is able to live within his means and not vie for things that are not earned by him. In fact people like him deserved to be called the Rich Men. For the abundance of the mind is far more valuable an asset as compared to the physical description of wealth that we are all so accustomed to.
Our recent staff research finds that new technology risks widening the gap between rich and poor countries by shifting more investment to advanced economies where automation is already established. This could in turn have negative consequences for jobs in developing countries by threatening to replace rather than complement their growing labor force, which has traditionally provided an advantage to less developed economies. To prevent this growing divergence, policymakers in developing economies will need to take actions to raise productivity and improve skills among workers.
Share-in-production: Advanced economies have higher wages because total factor productivity is higher. These higher wages induce firms in advanced economies to use robots more intensively to begin with, especially when robots easily substitute for workers. Then, when robot productivity rises, the advanced economy will benefit more in the long run. This divergence grows larger, the more robots substitute for workers.
Terms-of-trade: A developing economy will likely specialize in sectors that rely more on unskilled labor, which it has more of compared to an advanced economy. Assuming robots replace unskilled labor but complement skilled workers, a permanent decline in the terms of trade in the developing region may emerge after the robot revolution. This is because robots will disproportionately displace unskilled workers, reducing their relative wages and lowering the price of the good that uses unskilled labor more intensively. The drop in relative price of its main output, in turn, acts as a further negative shock, reducing the incentive to invest and potentially leading to a fall not just in relative but in absolute GDP.
Our results critically depend on whether robots indeed substitute for workers. While it may be too early to predict the extent of this substitution in the future, we find suggestive evidence that this is the case. In particular, we find that higher wages coincide with significantly higher use of robots, consistent with the idea that firms substitute away from workers and towards robots in response to higher labor costs.
Improvements in the productivity of robots drive divergence between advanced and developing countries if robots substitute easily for workers. In addition, those improvements will tend to increase incomes but also increase income inequality, at least during the transition and possibly in the long run for some groups of workers, in both advanced and developing economies.
Our findings also underscore the importance of human capital accumulation to prevent divergence and point to potentially different growth dynamics among developing economies with different skill levels. The landscape is likely going to be much more challenging for developing countries which have hoped for high dividends from a much-anticipated demographic transition. The growing youth population in developing countries was hailed by policymakers as possibly a big chance to benefit from a transition of jobs from China as a result of its graduating middle-income status. Our findings show that robots may steal these jobs. Policymakers should act to mitigate those risks. Especially in the face of these new technologically-driven pressures, a drastic shift to rapidly improve productivity gains and invest in education and skills development will capitalize on the much-anticipated demographic transition.
IMFBlog is a forum for the views of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff and officials on pressing economic and policy issues of the day.The IMF, based in Washington D.C., is an organization of 190 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation and financial stability around the world.The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF and its Executive Board. Read More
The reason James gives for both paradoxical instructions is that everything we have on earth will fade away, whether poverty or riches (v. 11). We should therefore place our security in eternal riches.
A very good explanation , by the youngesters on the book of james , really i am in a postion today that there is lack of financials and we are being cheated by everyone and Yes we have to lean on god and believe in him ( who can do everything) .
Yes we cant think about to become rich as well as to be with god,
first we have to look for his kingdom and his righteousness so that we will get all the requirements that we want.
Thank you for your word of encouragement.
I am following this 30 day devtional and really i am learning many new things.
Thank you all of you once again.
May god bless you more and more.
Our position with God gives us the more reason to trust God. In our insufficiency, God will provide; in our weakness, God is our strength; in our sorrow, God is our joy; in chaos, God will be our peace; in our wanderings, God is our refuge. God will forever and ever pursue us with His love, grace & mercy.
But according to research from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, income inequality in the Bay Area has worsened only marginally, at least when compared to other parts of the state. In 2007, Bay Area households at the top 10 percent of incomes made about 10.6 times what Bay Area households at the bottom 10 percent of incomes brought home. By 2014, they made about 11.6 times as much.
So much for the growth in the gap; what about the size of the gap itself? Income inequality within California may not look like what you would expect. Regions such as Orange County and the Bay Area, despite their notable concentrations of wealth, are some of the more equal in the state. By far the most unequal California region is the Central Valley, where high-income households make 14 times as much as poor households.
There are other important lessons to draw from how income inequality varies throughout the state, and how the pattern has changed since the Great Recession. Part of the reason why regions such as the Bay Area and Orange County stack up favorably is because recent changes in income inequality have more to do with the deteriorating incomes of the poor than the growing fortunes of the rich.
Those California regions with the biggest chasm between rich and poor typically have some of the poorest populations in the state. In the Central Valley for example, households in the bottom 10 percent of the income distribution made less than $10,000 per year (adjusted for a family of four). Their equivalents in the Bay Area made more than double that.
Focusing on very rich households will yield different results than focusing on even slightly less rich households. Research from the Brookings Institute that compares higher-income households (those at the top 5 percent) to those at the bottom 20 percent makes the Bay Area appear much more unequal, with the greater San Francisco metro area the third most unequal region in the country.
64591212e2