upworthy

inequality

A woman with hundred dollar bills.

The United States has more money held by private citizens than any other country in the world. According to the Federal Reserve, U.S. households hold a total of $160.35 trillion, which is the value of each person’s assets minus their liabilities. However, many Americans are perplexed by the fact that, in a country with such wealth, so many people still struggle to make ends meet.

Although Americans hold the largest amount of privately held wealth in the world, many of us still struggle with financial stress. A recent report found that 68% don’t have enough money to retire, 56% are struggling to keep up with the cost of living, and 45% are worried about their debt levels. A significant reason is that a small number of people hold a large portion of the privately held wealth in the U.S..

Nearly two-thirds of America’s private wealth is held by the top 10% of people, leaving the remaining one-third to be divided among 90% of the population.

elon musk, richest americans, elon musk black hat, elon musk sunglasses, doge Elon Musk at CPAC.via Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

What if America divided its privately held money evenly?

With so many people struggling in America, while a few at the top are unbelievably wealthy, what would happen if the money were magically divided evenly among the 340 million people who live in the United States? If everyone received a truly equal share of the American pie, every person would receive approximately $471,465. That’s $942,930 per couple and $1.89 million for those with two kids.

With that chunk of change, the couple could easily pay off the average U.S. mortgage and have plenty of resources to save for a good retirement and send both kids to a decent college or trade school. The billionaire who once had more assets than they knew what to do with would probably have to move into a middle-class neighborhood.

couple with money, middle class money, cash money, couple on couch, man and woman A couple with cash sitting on a couch.via Canva/Photos

However, such a drastic redistribution of wealth would be cataclysmic for the economy, as people would have to liquidate their investments to give their assets to others. The sudden increase in wealth for many, without a corresponding increase in goods and services, would lead to incredibly high inflation. The dramatic reconfiguring of the economy would also disincentivize some from working and others from innovating. Some posit that if everyone were equal, in just a few months, those with wealth-generating skills would immediately begin rising to the top again, while others would fall behind.

What programs reduce poverty?

Although it seems that a massive redistribution of wealth isn’t in the cards for many reasons, we do have some evidence from recent history on how programs that give people money can help lift them out of poverty. Government stimulus programs during the COVID-19 pandemic brought the U.S. poverty level to a record low of 7.8% in 2021. Child poverty was also helped by the American Rescue Plan’s Child Tax credit expansion, which drove child poverty to an all-time low of 5.2%. It’s also worth noting that the trillions in government stimulus had a downside, as it was partially responsible for a historic rise in inflation.

While for many, the notion that there are billionaires while others can hardly get by feels obscene, redistributing America’s wealth is more of a thought experiment than something that would realistically happen. But it highlights an important truth: massive wealth inequality exists in the world’s wealthiest nation. While perfect equality will never exist, that shouldn't stop us from making targeted efforts to reduce poverty that make a meaningful difference in people’s lives.

Photo by Jose Alonso on Unsplash

If you see school buses parked around your city and get confused because schools are closed, no worries. It's likely that those buses are pumping out wifi for students who otherwise struggle for internet access.

With schools shut down across the country, school districts have had to scramble to figure out how to provide online schooling quickly. That's no simple task, and the transition has been a rocky one for administrators, teachers, parents, and kids. For families without the technology that enables that transition, it's been even harder.


Since online learning is the only way students can stay connected to schools and teachers, internet is a vital service. But despite the ubiquity of internet providers, not all families can afford internet. Even in places where internet providers are offering free wifi to families who can't afford it, some still can't afford the hardware—modems, routers—that enable them to take advantage of it.

School districts across the nation are addressing part of this issue by transforming their now-empty school buses into mobile wifi hotspots to bring online access to students. School bus hotspots fill a gap for families that aren't able to get wifi in their homes, for whatever reason. And though the idea isn't new—some districts have been using wifi-enabled buses as hotspots for years—it is becoming widespread during the pandemic.

In Montgomery, Alabama, 11 wifi-enabled buses already have rolled out, six more will go out today, and more will come next week. Montgomery Mayor Steven Reed told WSFA News why the buses are important.

"Because we understand there's a digital divide," he said. "And the coronavirus pandemic that we're into right now has only heightened the chasm that exists between those who can access high-speed internet service and those who can't."

"The idea is that any parent, any child in any neighborhood where they see that yellow school bus, they can access the WiFi hotspot," said MPS Superintendent Dr. Ann Roy Moore. "They don't have to be right down the street from their home. If they're at home, it's fine, but if they're at their grandma's house and there's a bus down the road, they can also access from that location."

The largest school district in Austin, Texas has deployed more than 100 wifi buses around the city through a $600,000 grant from Kajeet, an education technology provider.

"As we prepare for the possibility of extended school closures, we know that an Internet connection is a lifeline and a learning link for our students," Kevin Schwartz, chief technology officer for Austin ISD, said in a news release.

"Austin ISD will be deploying many of our 500+ Kajeet Wi-Fi/Internet enabled school buses to locations around our school district so that students can connect using our district Chromebooks."

The buses do have some limitations, however. The buses in Austin broadcast about 300 feet, so some students may have to go outside of their homes to catch a signal. They are not allowed to board the bus, so inclement weather can make accessing the wifi tricky for some, but it's definitely better than nothing.

One thing the COVID-19 pandemic has succeeded in doing is shining a spotlight on existing inequities in our country. School districts in low-income areas that already struggle with funding suddenly have to figure out how to provide computers and internet to students, while many wealthier districts already had laptops or tablets for every student. Thankfully, donors and organizations are stepping up to assist, but addressing the economic inequality underlying the problem will need longer-lasting institutional solutions.

In the meantime, wifi buses are an innovative temporary stopgap for families who can't access the internet otherwise.

Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos (a.k.a. The Wealthiest Man to Ever Walk the Earth) has announced that his company (a.k.a. the Most Valuable Company to Ever Exist) will contribute $1 million Australian dollars in aid to Australia to assist with the country's bushfire recovery efforts. In U.S. dollars, that's approximately $690,000.

For sure, $690,000 is not a small amount of money, and every donation counts. But the announcement from Bezos has people expressing their not-so-charitable feelings about the mega rich man and his mega valuable company. And when you calculate what kind of an effect $690,000 has on Amazon's bottom line, it's not hard to see why.


We're about to get into some unreal numbers here, so it's worth doing a bit of a "How Much Is a Billion" review. Most of us don't have a good grasp on how much a billion is.



So now that we understand how bonkers a billion dollars is, how many billions is Amazon worth? Valuing a company isn't a straightforward endeavor, so estimates vary. Some market cap valuations have put Amazon's worth at $1 trillion. (That's a thousand billions, $1,000,000,000,000 if you really want to see the zeroes.) A much more conservative estimate puts the company's true net worth at less than a fifth of that, at $160 billion.

RELATED: The Truth Behind Amazon's Success? It's Kinda Evil.

Just for funsies, let's take a look at the math for both Amazon value extremes and compare it to the average American's charitable giving.

If Amazon is valued at $1 trillion, a donation of $690,000 would be .000069% of the company's worth. According to the Federal Reserve, the median net worth for American families is $97,000. So that means for the typical American, a donation equivalent to Amazon's would be less than 7 cents. Now, that's not nothing, right? But is that a donation people would feel good about announcing?

Now let's look at the more conservative estimate of $160 billion. In that case, a $690,000 donation would be .00043% of Amazon's worth. For the typical American household, that's the equivalent of giving…wait for it…42 cents. Again, is that a donation most of us would announce proudly?

Twitter users were quick to point out the relatively tiny donation from the world's most valuable company, especially compared to what several others whose net worths are far lower have donated. For example, the heavy metal group Metallica reportedly donated $750,000. Pop singer Pink has pledged $500,000 (and Bette Midler is matching it).


In turn, other Twitter users chided people for charity shaming, pointing out that Amazon didn't have to give anything, but did. And it's true. Giving is voluntary. (It's also true that charitable giving is a way for rich people to pay less in taxes, so giving isn't always about altruism.) But it's also all relative. For a person making minimum wage, even a few dollars is a huge sacrifice. Relative to total wealth, Amazon's donation is the sacrificial equivalent of a few coins of pocket change for most of us.

The debate boils down to whether or not someone with gargantuan amounts of extra money has some kind of obligation to society to share the wealth with those in need. And if so, how much of that wealth is a reasonable amount to expect? (For an interesting look at how much billionaires give compared to their wealth, check out this article.)

The guy who originally posted the Bezos story pointed out that if everyone on Twitter donated $2, they could beat Bezos' donation, but that suggestion seems to miss—or perhaps reinforce—the point. A $2 donation for the typical American would be the equivalent of more than $3 million for Amazon.

Good effort at rallying the 99.9%, though, man. But perhaps people can give their $2 and also push for accountability for megabillionaires whose companies pay no taxes.

For years, breast cancer patients, survivors, and their families have wondered if decades of walks, ribbons, fundraising, awareness, and dedicated activism were making a difference.

On Tuesday, a new batch of results came in.


A statistical analysis published by the American Cancer Society found that mortality rates from breast cancer fell 39% between 1989 and 2015.

The decrease amounts to 322,600 saved lives in 26 years, according to the paper's authors. Researchers attribute the drop to increased early detection and more effective treatment options.

The percentage of women over 40 who have had a mammogram in the prior two years grew from 29% in 1987 to 64% in 2015. Meanwhile, options for combatting the disease have increased, thanks to the advent of new drugs and therapies.

Hundreds of thousands of fewer people dying is good news.

The bad news is that black women continue to die from the disease at higher rates than any other demographic.

While a lower percentage of black women are dying from the disease overall, their fatality rates are still nearly 40% higher than those of white women, a rate that has remained maddeningly persistent for decades.

Photo by USAG, Humphreys/Flickr.

"The reason for the black and white difference is primarily related to economic status and lack of insurance on part of black women," Harold Freeman, former director of the American Cancer Society, told NPR in a 2014 interview.  "But also, we have a health care system that doesn't treat everyone equally." He cites a lack of ability to pay for preventive care and subconscious assumptions that lead some medical professionals to ignore black women's concerns as contributing factors.

The study also found that the racial mortality gap varied heavily by region. Disparities were worst in eight mostly southern states: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, and Michigan.

Eliminating the racial disparity when it comes to breast cancer diagnoses will require more than ribbons and walks to solve — and organizations are already rising to the challenge.

Groups like Breast Cancer Action have made racial justice a core plank, citing the need to address the disparities in education, housing, and economic power that exacerbate the mortality gap at its root.

As a stopgap, programs like the CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program help provide early detection screenings to low-income and uninsured people.

While some states indeed showed large, persistent racial disparities in mortality rates, according to the study, the gap was nearly nonexistent in several others. Three states — California, Massachusetts, and Delaware — made significant, verifiable progress in making outcomes more equal over the 26-year span.

"This means that there is light at the end of the tunnel," Carol DeSantis, lead author of the study, told The Washington Post. "Some states are showing that they can close the gap."

For the 252,710 people expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer this year — and hundreds of thousands more in the years to come — the progress in treating the disease is a welcome sign.

The work to make sure they all have an equal shot at a full recovery remains.