ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, July 16, 1996 TAG: 9607160050
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
"WORLDWIDE, 358 billionaires control assets greater than the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people," reports The New York Times.
Forget the Fortune 500 list of the world's largest companies. These are the 350-or-so more-than-fortunate individuals whose massive wealth illustrates the widening gap between the rich and the poor of the world - and of the United States.
Did we say gap? The distance appears more like a chasm in a new United Nations report that shows a 9-to-1 ratio between the top 20 percent of American incomes and the bottom 20 percent - the widest disparity in half a century. And the distribution of other wealth, such as property and investments, separates the groups even more.
That puts the United States among the most economically stratified nations in the world, according to the Human Development Report 1996.
Of course, everything is relative, including poverty. The United States also happens to be one of the richest nations of the world. So, while the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, the overall quality-of-life picture is certainly not as grim as that troubling trend might suggest in isolation.
America is second, behind Canada, among 174 countries on a Human Development Index, which ranks countries by such factors as health, sanitation and treatment of women.
Still, it hardly will do for the United States to assume it will always be so blessed when a growing portion of its wealth becomes more and more concentrated among a small elite.
The report points out that economic growth has been fastest in Asia, where the division of wealth has shown less disparity than elsewhere. Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have spent heavily on health, education, advancing women's status, and opening credit to low-income families and small businesses.
The United States has made no small investment in these things, either, over the years. But as it reshuffles its priorities and finds itself trying to do less with less, its leaders and electorate might consider yet another survey index, this one called the "capability poverty measure."
This index tries to assess the likelihood of future poverty by looking at the factors that virtually guarantee it: the percentage of children under 5 who are underweight, of infants whose births were unattended by medical professionals, of children who are in school, of women who are illiterate.
Such disadvantages comprise a "don't" list that points to a corresponding set of "do's" needed for a healthy economic future open to everyone who wants a chance at it: early childhood nutrition, prenatal care, quality public education, and opportunities for women beyond child-bearing.
Women and children assured of these basic necessities won't be handed a spot on the list of 350-odd-billionaires, but they will have a chance to narrow that widening gap between haves and have-nots.
Ultimately, division into rigid classes with no hope of mobility will threaten both the spread of democracy and the sustained production of wealth.
LENGTH: Medium: 59 linesby CNB