There will always be the richest (Bill Gates), the super-rich (Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone, George Soros), the very rich (Paul McCartney, Oprah Winfrey), the merely-rich (Travolta and most other movie-people), the wealthy (none especially notable, name-wise), the well-off (many, many people), and the comfortable (some of whom live in my neighborhood; not including me, of course).
Likewise, there will always be similar varieties of the poor and less-fortunate, from "hard time paying the bills" to "grinding, Haitian-style poverty".
The rich exhibit altruism to the extent that they can, or want to; they also treat themselves rather well, as we all know.
We all aspire to wealth, don't we?
One thing to keep in mind, though:
Wealth is not a zero-sum game; the fact of Bill Gates' or John Travolta's wealth has not the slightest thing to do with the relative "poorness" of the poorest person on earth.
What the rich have is money, and so are equipped to create a higher standard of living for everyone by the fact of seeking to preserve their wealth.
Money does not accrue interest automatically; it must be "put to work" in order to do so, and thus has at least the potential to benefit those further down the economic ladder.
Poor people don't own businesses or employ people.
Though Bill Gates has donated astounding amounts of money to a variety of worthy causes, the best thing he does for the less-fortunate is to continue being rich, as, in the long-run, many more people benefit thereby.
Sorry to be spouting basic economics here, but an occasional reminder seems appropriate.
Bookmarks