Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We have extreme inequality in America, and it’s getting worse

Mark Zuckerberg holding a pair of glasses

Mark Zuckerberg, who is now worth more than $200 billion, shows off new wearabel tech at the Meta Connect developer conference in September.

Andrej Sokolow/picture alliance via Getty Images

Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.

Bloomberg recently reported that Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg is now worth over $200 billion. He’s not alone. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Tesla founder Elon Musk, and LVMH founder Bernard Arnault are also worth north of $200 billion.

The news is a searing reminder of the uneven distribution of wealth in America. In the same country as Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk reside millions of people without a reliable source of food. (Arnault lives in France.) Redistributing just a small portion of the richest Americans’ wealth could alleviate tremendous human suffering.


The problem is getting worse with time. According to Forbes magazine, “In 1987, the [world’s] 140 billionaires had an aggregate net worth of $295 billion.” But now, in 2024, there are “more billionaires than ever: 2,781 in all, 141 more than last year and 26 more than the record set in 2021. They’re richer than ever, worth $14.2 trillion in aggregate, up by $2 trillion from 2023 and $1.1 trillion above the previous record, also set in 2021.”

Forbes continued: “Much of the gains come from the top 20, who added a combined $700 billion in wealth since 2023, and from the U.S., which now boasts a record 813 billionaires worth a combined $5.7 trillion.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

What could that vast wealth do? Looking globally, Oxfam International recently explained that $1.7 trillion is “enough to lift two billion people out of poverty.” So just a fraction of the wealth of a small number of people could bring billions out of poverty.

The problem, though, isn’t just the top 0.1 percent. As Pew Research notes, America’s upper class is getting richer as its middle class is getting smaller: “The growth in income in recent decades has tilted to upper-income households. At the same time, the U.S. middle class, which once comprised the clear majority of Americans, is shrinking. Thus, a greater share of the nation’s aggregate income is now going to upper-income households and the share going to middle- and lower-income households is falling. The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019.”

America’s inequality, moreover, is markedly worse than other wealthy nations. The Gini coefficient is a common measure of a country’s inequality. It uses a scale of 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (complete inequality). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2017, “the Gini coefficient in the U.S. stood at 0.434.” This number “was higher than in any other of the G-7 countries, in which the Gini ranged from 0.326 in France to 0.392 in the UK, and inching closer to the level of inequality observed in India (0.495).”

There are many reasons for this inequality. Among them: technological automation, inherited wealth, lax corporate regulation, liberal trade policies, outsourced labor, insufficient taxation and broken public schools. Some inequality, of course, is also driven by individual choice (people electing to spend time on less-lucrative activities) and work ethic (some people work more than others).

And, importantly, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with people getting rich. Some amount of inequality should even be encouraged. Hard work and ingenuity should be rewarded, as wealth must be created in order to be redistributed. And high-profile business successes motivate others to innovate and take risks that improve society at large.

But an excessive amount of inequality — see Zuckerberg, Bezos and Musk — allows large-scale human suffering to go needlessly unaddressed. This isn't just unfair. As the International Monetary Fund explained, it has widespread societal consequences: “growing inequality breeds social resentment and generates political instability. It also fuels populist, protectionist, and anti-globalization sentiments.”

These problems aren't surprising or complicated. They’re obvious consequences of a deeply flawed economic system. The same nation simply shouldn’t have a few jackpot winners hoarding billions and, at the same time, tens of millions struggling to get by.

Read More

Trump’s tariff strategy hammers Wall Street

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on March 11, 2025 in New York City. Following the worst day for the markets this year, the Dow was down nearly 500 points in morning trading.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Trump’s tariff strategy hammers Wall Street

The chaos that gripped Wall Street on March 10, 2025, was no accident.

The plummeting stock market, the sharp decline in Bitcoin, and the spike in volatility all pointed to a single, undeniable factor: President Donald Trump’s economic policies, particularly his tariff-heavy approach, have unnerved investors and accelerated fears of an impending recession.

Keep ReadingShow less
Welcome to the Musk era of unchecked conflicts

Elon Musk speaks during CPAC-DC at the Gaylord National Resort in Oxon Hill, M.D., on Feb. 20, 2025.

Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Welcome to the Musk era of unchecked conflicts

When the computers arrived at City Hall in January of 2002, they were the talk of the town.

Known as “The Bloomberg,” the system of flat-screen terminals used to crunch real-time market data made famous by their namesake mogul Mike Bloomberg, were sent to populate the new mayor of New York City’s wall-less office, known to his staffers as The Bullpen.

Keep ReadingShow less
Indian talents in the US: the brain drain dilemma
white microscope on top of black table
Photo by Ousa Chea on Unsplash

Indian talents in the US: the brain drain dilemma

As India marches towards its ambitious goal of becoming a “Viksit Bharat” by 2047, as proclaimed by Narendra Modi, a critical challenge threatens this vision: the ongoing exodus of its brightest minds. India aspires to become a global power, but its current development seems to rely more on its population size than on its achievements in science, technology, art, innovation, and the like. This strategic vacuum is particularly glaring in the discussion around the H-1B visa. The Indian government has always attached great importance to the US H-1B visa, regarding it as part of its national interest. However, what is more worth thinking about is: why does India actively support the outflow of outstanding talents from the country?

A report “The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2024” released by the US National Science Foundation shows that in 2021, foreign-born scientists and engineers accounted for about 19% of all science and engineering workers in the United States, and this proportion jumped to about 43% among scientists and engineers with doctoral degrees. Among them, India has become the largest source of foreign-born science and engineering workers, accounting for 29%. “Our dependence on foreign talent, especially our over-reliance on talent from strategic competitors such as India, is like a double-edged sword. It has promoted our scientific and technological progress, but it has also exposed our weaknesses,” in response to this phenomenon, Divyansh Kaushik of the Institute of the Federation of American Scientists, emphasized. Why can’t a country that can cultivate a large number of internationally competitive talents keep them in the country? According to statistics, 75% of H-1B visa holders in the United States are from India, which reflects the structural problems of India’s local job market.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Figurines of manual workers with stacks of coins

Getty Images/Glow Images

Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Among the international trade issues making headlines is President Trump’s recent announcement to abandon current U.S. law regarding small, low-value packages containing products purchased by Americans from overseas. The initial Executive Order was paused just days later. But the threat remains, making damaging economic repercussions imminent.

The process for such small-dollar shipments is de minimis entry. The term means “pertaining to tiny or trivial things,” emphasizing why its usage only applies to goods under a lower-priced threshold.

Keep ReadingShow less