If you earn $60,000 a year after tax and you don’t have kids, you’re in the richest 1 percent of the world’s population. If you have a household income of $130,000 after tax and you’ve got a partner and one kid, you’re also in the richest 1 percent.
I mean if you had bothered to open the article, it’s in the 2nd paragraph:
The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year
more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year, accounted for 16% of all CO2 emissions in 2019 – enough to cause more than a million excess deaths due to heat, according to the report.
absolutely irrelevant and disingenuous using local income on a global scale. Dude making 130, 000 in Vancouver these days is a broke motherfucker (before tax)
1% of world?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich
I mean if you had bothered to open the article, it’s in the 2nd paragraph:
Why do these articles always mix up wealth and income?
You needed 800k$ in 2018 to be part of the 1% wealthiest.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html
I did, that continues as:
Which is not the same as the headline.
Top 1% does 16%, bottom 66% does 16%, middle 33% does 68%.
On a per-capita basis, the top 1% is 8x worse than the middle 33% and 66x worse than the bottom 66%.
Not having kids affects how rich you are ?
Less kids means less money spent and more money saved in the long run, so yeah.
So kids have négative value?
Depending on who you ask, yes.
absolutely irrelevant and disingenuous using local income on a global scale. Dude making 130, 000 in Vancouver these days is a broke motherfucker (before tax)