Occidental Petroleum fined $18.25 million for fatal 2017 natural gas explosion


Colorado regulators fined Kerr McGee $18.25 million for a 2017 gas explosion that blew up a house and killed two people. File photo by Gary C. Caskey/UPI

DENVER, March 12 (UPI) -- Colorado state oil and gas regulators assessed a record $18.25 million fine Thursday to an oil and gas company found to be at fault in a deadly 2017 house explosion that killed two people.

Jeff Robbins, director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the state's regulatory agency, said an "aggravating factor" of loss of life boosted the penalty against Kerr McGee, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corp.

Mark Martinez and Joey Irwin were killed in Firestone, Colo., and Erin Martinez was badly burned April 17, 2017, when leaking odorless natural gas ignited as the two men were replacing a basement hot water heater. Flames shot hundreds of feet into the air and the house was destroyed.

Kerr McGee failed to protect the health and safety of people and environment by neglecting its properties, the Colorado notice of violation said.

"Our lives are forever changed," Firestone widow Erin Martinez said in a statement Thursday. "It is hard to comprehend that the only recourse is a penalty or a fine, how do you put a price on human life?"

Martinez family members received an undisclosed settlement in 2018 in a civil suit against Anadarko Petroleum Corp., parent company of Kerr McGee at the time of the explosion.

Agency chief Robbins said fine revenue will go toward special projects for mapping buried flowlines and increasing air monitoring equipment for methane leaks.

Occidental spokesperson Jennifer Brice said in a statement the company would not contest the penalties.

"We are mindful of the events of April 17, 2017, every day, and our thoughts continue to be with the families, friends and communities affected by the Firestone tragedy," Brice said.

The multimillion-dollar penalty is the second this year by state agencies for oil and gas explosions.

Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection fined pipeline company Energy Transfer $30 million for a 2018 pipeline explosion.

"This is a high fine for the state of Colorado," said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians. "A multimillion-dollar fine sends a message to the industry. It is about trying to deter future incidents," Nichols said.

"But no state has really been able to hold this industry accountable. The industry is trying to pay its way out of killing people," he said.

"Safety has been, and will remain, our industry's top priority," Dan Haley, president and chief executive officer, of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, wrote in an email. "Our members are always working hard to improve our safety practices, to share those best practices and to commit to getting better, cleaner and safer each day."

An October, 2019, investigation of the Firestone explosion by the National Transportation Safety Board showed that a severed plastic pipeline from a dormant, but unplugged, well was the source of the gas that blew up the house.

Anadarko Petroleum had acquired a license to the well, which was left open with a low gas flow. Anadarko was acquired by Occidental last year.

New Colorado laws require mapping of all underground gas lines starting this year.

Sen. Bernie Sanders wins California primary



Sen. Bernie Sanders has 711 delegates compared to former Vice President Joe Biden's 864. Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI | License Photo

March 12 (UPI) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders won the biggest Super Tuesday prize -- California -- news outlets projected Thursday.

More than a week after Californians participated in the state's Democratic primary, a final count of mail-in votes and provisional ballots gave Sanders, I-Vt., the win. Both CNN and NBC News called the race in his favor, with 34.3 percent of the vote, or about 184 delegates.

Former Vice President Joe Biden won 27.6 percent -- good for an estimated 144 delegates. The remaining 81 delegates are unallocated, some going toward candidates who've since dropped out of the race, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who got 13.2 percent of the vote and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg who got 12.9 percent.

California is one of four states Sanders won on March 10, compared to Biden's nine. This primary season, Biden has 864 pledged delegates and Sanders has 711.

The two candidates will next face each other Sunday during a debate at CNN's Washington, D.C. The Democratic National Committee announced Thursday it won't have a live audience for the event as a precautionary measure due to the coronavirus outbreak.

The next primaries are scheduled for Tuesday in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio.

Guatemalan woman, unborn child die after fall from border barrier

AMERIKA IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY


A 19-year-old Guatemalan woman and her unborn child died after falling 20 feet while attempting to scale a border barrier in El Paso. File Photo by Natalie Krebs/UPI | License Photo

March 12 (UPI) -- A pregnant Guatemalan woman and her unborn child died after falling while attempting to scale a border barrier near El Paso, Texas, the Guatemalan consulate said Thursday.

The consulate said the woman, Miriam Estefany Giron Luna, 19, fell nearly 20 feet from the steel mesh border wall in Clint, Texas, on Saturday and landed on her back.




Giron Luna was about seven months pregnant and sustained a brain hemorrhage, damage to her liver and kidneys, a fractured pelvis, and other injuries.

She died on Tuesday after multiple surgeries, including an emergency C-section that was unable to save the life of the child.

"Despite the best efforts of medical personnel, her unborn child did not survive," U.S. Customs and Border Protection said.

Dilver Israel Diaz Garcia, 26, accompanied Giron Luna at the time of the incident and went searching for help after the fall. He was in Border Patrol custody.

CBP's Office of Professional Accountability said it is reviewing the incident and the Department of Homeland's Security's Office of the Inspector General and the Guatemalan government have been notified.

Visualizing 35 Years of Income Distribution in USA from Howmuch.net on Vimeo.

Watch as the Rich Take a Larger Share of Income While the Rest Shrink

Income inequality is a growing concern across the world. In the United States, the distribution of income controlled by the wealthiest Americans has been growing for some time now. View our Voronoi diagram below to see a time-lapse of the distribution of income in the U.S.

The diagram is split into six different income groups: the top 90 percent, the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the 1 percent, the top 0.1 percent and the top 0.01 percent. Each group is represented by a different color. After pressing play, the chart will begin changing shape as the share of income each group controls changes over time. The data were collected from the World and Wealth Income Database for the years 1979 to 2014 (Please note that the data collected does not include capital gains as income, nor is the data a measure of wealth).

Percentage Change of Each Group between 1979 and 2014:

• Bottom 90 percent
  • 67.65% to 52.66%
  • Total Share Change: -14.99%
  • Growth of Income Group Share: -22.16%
• Top 10 percent
  • 11.52% to 12.57%
  • Total Share Change: 1.05%
  • Growth of Income Group Share: 9.11%
• Top 5 percent
  • 12.8% to 16.79%
  • Total Share Change: 3.99%
  • Growth of Income Group Share: 31.17%
• Top 1 percent
  • 5.87% to 10.36%
  • Total Share Change: 4.49%
  • Growth of Income Group Share: 76.49%
• Top 0.1 percent
  • 1.54% to 4.43%
  • Total Share Change: 2.89%
  • Growth of Income Group Share: 187.66%
• Top 0.01 percent
  • 0.62% to 3.19%
  • Total Share Change: 2.57%
  • Growth of Income Group Share: 414.52%

Both the data and the chart show the large growth of total income held by the richest Americans. As the diagram goes through each year, the share of income held by the bottom 90 percent continually shrinks, with the exception of 1981, 1989, 1991, 1993, 2001, 2009 and 2013. However, the overall trend is steeply downward for the bottom 90%. In some years, the share of income held by the bottom 90 percent goes up, but only by a very small amount. In the other years, the share of income held by the bottom 90 percent goes down, but by much larger amount. Between 1979 and 2014, this income group went from controlling 67.65 percent of all income to 52.66 percent. The slice representing the bottom 90 percent shrinks by 22.16% over the course of the time-lapse.

Looking at the Percentage Change of Each Group chart, one can see an obvious trend. The richer the income group, the faster the income share growth. This trend follows exactly through every income group going upward. The top 0.01 percent, the richest group measured, saw its income share grow more than four times its original size. The top 1 percent saw its percentage share of income almost double, from 5.87% in 1979 to 10.36% in 2014. The top 10 percent’s overall share of income did not increase by that much. While it did grow by some, the richer income groups grew at a much faster rate. This is represented by the rapidly growing slices in the time-lapse. Although the top 0.01 percent slice starts small, it grows incredibly quickly, while the bottom 90 percent group shrinks. The trend here is obvious: incomes in the United States are leaving the bottom 90 percent and moving towards the richest Americans.

The time-lapse shows an interesting change over the period 1979 to 2014. The bottom 90 percent of income earners, representing the vast majority of the US population, see their share of total income fall quickly over the period. At the same time, the wealthiest gain more and more control as time passes. The wealthier the income group, the faster the share of total income grows.

Watch as the Rich Take a Larger Share of Income While the Rest Shrink https://t.co/raF2Gm6ozV @howmuch_net #dataviz pic.twitter.com/p0Hzxpq6gM

— How Much (@howmuch_net) September 6, 2016

Visualizing Countries with the Highest Household Wealth  

We all know it costs money to make money, but is there a direct correlation between income and overall personal wealth? If there is, we would expect to see the relationship in our new visualization comparing accumulated wealth and disposable income at the household level across the OECD.

We got our numbers directly from the OECD. Our visualization roughly corresponds to the geographic location of each country on the map—the U.S. is furthest “west” and Japan is further “east.” The size of each bubble represents average household wealth for each country, or assets minus liabilities. This takes into account things like savings, securities, stocks and loans (but not real estate). We then color-coded each bubble based on the average disposable income for each household, which equates to the amount of income left over after taxes and transfers have been taken out. Basically, it’s how much you can spend on living expenses and other discretionary purchases.

These are the top ten countries among the OECD with the highest household wealth, together with the average disposable income.

1. United States: $176,076 with $44,049 in disposable income

2. Switzerland: $128,415 with $36,378 in disposable income

3. Belgium: $104,084 with $29,968 in disposable income

4. Japan: $97,595 with $28,641 in disposable income

5. Sweden: $90,708 with $30,553 in disposable income

6. Netherlands: $90,002 with $28,783 in disposable income

7. Canada: $85,758 with $29,850 in disposable income

8. United Kingdom: $83,405 with $28,408 in disposable income

9. Luxembourg: $74,141 with $41,317 in disposable income

10. Denmark: $73,543 with $28,950 in disposable income

Our visualization reveals several key insights about personal wealth accumulation across the OECD. First off, the U.S. clearly dominates the rankings with over $170k on average per household. The other standout on our list, Switzerland, is far behind the U.S. with $128k of accumulated household wealth on average. The rankings then become much tighter further down the list with countries grouped together in the $70-90k range. There are also a few countries in the OECD for obvious political reasons. It is hard to see why Russia should be counted with only $16,657 in disposable income and $2,260 in net financial wealth.

Now take a look at the color of each bubble, which corresponds to the average disposable income for each country. You might think that having a higher disposable income is directly associated with building household wealth, but clearly there are other factors involved. Granted, Americans enjoy both the most disposable income on average ($44,049), but this only partly explains their lead in household wealth. For example, Luxembourgers have only $3,000 less in disposable income ($41,317), but over a $100,000 less in average household wealth. And take a look at the Norwegians who have $35,739 in disposable income but only $20,347 in household wealth. Clearly all that extra money is going somewhere, and it’s not to a savings account.

One obvious assumption behind our numbers is the longstanding decline of defined benefit pension systems in the U.S. Whereas European countries maintain social programs that provide for a secure retirement, many workers are largely left alone in the U.S. to save for their golden years. Another factor is wealth inequality. Since we are only looking at average figures, a small number of millionaires and billionaires in the U.S. inflate average wealth figures, when in reality most people are barely getting by.

All these caveats aside, clearly the U.S. enjoys a leg up in wealth accumulation within the OECD. Also keep in mind that owning your own home is closely associated with building personal wealth, but the OECD excluded the value of land and dwellings from its analysis. This means that in all likelihood, our visualization actually understates the real value of American accumulated wealth.

About the article

Published: 9 July 2018

Visualizing the Wealthiest People in America & Their Generosity

Becoming a successful billionaire is the dream of many Americans. But often times people are more impressed by the charitable actions of billionaires, rather than by their success. This may be why Forbes included a new philanthropy score to its latest 400 billionaires list. Take a look at our chart below to see the wealthiest 30 Americans and their philanthropy score.

In the graphic above, the 30 wealthiest Americans are ranked from left to right. Each billionaire is represented by their name, the means by which they made their money, net worth and the new philanthropy score. The larger the billionaire’s net worth, the larger the green circle becomes. Philanthropy scores are measured on a scale of between 1 and 5, with 5 being the most philanthropic. If no charitable donations could be found, a philanthropic score of N.A. is applied. The data were collected from Forbes.

Top 10 Wealthiest American's & Philanthropy Score

• Jeff Bezos: $160 billion; 2
• Bill Gates: $97 billion; 5
• Warren Buffet: $88.3 billion; 5
• Mark Zuckerberg: $61 billion; 5
• Larry Ellison: $58.4 billion; 4
• Larry Page: $53.8 billion; 4
• Charles Koch: $53.5 billion; 4
• David Koch: $53.5 billion; 4
• Sergey Brin: $52.4 billion; 4
• Michael Bloomberg: $51.8 billion; 5

The new Forbes 400 list had an unsurprising change: Jeff Bezos - the founder, chairman and CEO of online retail giant Amazon – has supplanted Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates as the world’s richest man. According to Forbes, Bezos has added $78.5 billion to his net worth in the past year, giving him a total net worth of around $160 billion. Bezos has received a lot of attention in 2018 for his meteoric rise, but his philanthropy score of 2 is far from the highest. In fact, the next three richest billionaires – Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg – all have a philanthropy score of 5, the highest possible score.

According to Forbes, the way the philanthropy score was derived partially based on a billionaire’s involvement with the Giving Pledge. The movement was created by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet, with more than 40 other billionaires joining soon thereafter, in which billionaires promise to give away half or more of their fortunes. Jeff Bezos is not part of the Giving Pledge, which may help to explain is relatively lower philanthropy score.

There appears to be a correlation between the net worth of an individual and how much they give away to charity. The higher a billionaire’s net worth, the more they give away, not just in absolute terms, but in percentage terms as well. The further you go down on the billionaire’s list, the more ‘N/A’ philanthropy scores you see, as well as generally lower philanthropy scores in general. Forbes mentioned that in order to get a philanthropy score of 5, a billionaire had to give away at least $1 billion and/or 20% of their net worth. By that measure, only 29 of America’s 400 richest met that standard. George Soros gave away more than any other at a total of $32 billion, or 79% of his wealth, given to charity.

Jeff Bezos may now be the richest man in the world, but he is far from the most charitable. Billionaire’s are known for their philanthropy, but when it comes to charity, not all billionaires are created equal. If you ever become a billionaire sometime in the future, remember to give away as much as you can to get your philanthropy score to 5!

About the article

Published: 22 October 2018

8 Billionaires Own as Much as 3.6 Billion People

If you want stark visual proof of global inequality, here it is. Both halves of this graph represent an equal amount of global wealth. The top half consists of the world's eight richest billionaires. The bottom half represents the poorest half of humanity – that's 3.6 billion people.

Such levels of global wealth inequality are “beyond grotesque”, says Oxfam, which released the findings. And that inequality continues to grow: in last year's report, it took no less than 62 billionaires to equal the wealth of the world's bottom half.

The eight richest persons in the world collectively own about $426 billion. That is an average of about $53.25 billion for each. For the bottom half of the graph, the average of their collective wealth works out to less than $120 per person.

You're certain to know some of the guys in the most exclusive club in the world – the rich list rock stars. Others shun the limelight, preferring wealth without fame. Six are Americans, the other two hailing from Spain and Mexico:

1. Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, is the richest man in the world. He is worth $75 billion (8.80% of the eight wealthiest billionaires' fortunes combined).

2. Armancio Ortega ($67 billion, 7.86%) is the richest man in Europe. He is the founder of the Zara clothing brand and chain.

3. Warren Buffett ($60.8 billion, 7.13%) is an investment guru, best known for his holding company Berkshire Hathaway.

4. Carlos Slim ($50 billion, 5.87%) made his money via America Movil, a major telecommunications multinational operating mainly in Latin America.

5. Jeff Bezos ($45.2 billion, 5.30%) founded Amazon, which expanded from a web-based book shop to the undisputed worldwide online retail giant.

6. Mark Zuckerberg ($44.6 billion, 5.23%) founded Facebook back in 2004 and grew it into the world's favorite social media platform.

7. Larry Ellison ($43.6 billion, 5.11%) founded software giant Oracle.

8. Michael Bloomberg ($40 billion, 4.69%) founded Bloomberg LP, a financial and media giant, and was mayor of New York City.

The fact that this year it takes only 8 billionaires to equal the wealth of the world's poorest half is due to two main factors. Firstly, it turns out that poverty in China and India is worse than previously thought, meaning the bottom half is even worse off.

But, crucially, the wealth accumulation into the hands of an ever smaller number of super-rich continues. Oxfam points to wage restraints for lower- and middle-class incomes, a focus on increasing returns for shareholders and executives, and tax evasion by the wealthy as factors contributing to the ongoing phenomenon.

Oxfam states that since 2015, the richest 1% of the world own more than the other 99%. released its figures ahead of the World Economic Forum (17-20 January in Davos, Switzerland). The WEF has acknowledged rising inequality as a major risk to the global economy, and a potential driver for a reversal of globalisation.

Countering Oxfam's shocking report, some observers defend global capitalism by pointing out that free markets have helped over 100 million people rise out of poverty in the last year alone.

Disturbing Truth: 8 Billionaires Own as Much as 3.6 Billion People pic.twitter.com/wIxQEbzZhO https://t.co/SuQajmA68g @howmuch_net #dataviz

— How Much (@howmuch_net) January 18, 2017

Mapping Extreme Poverty Around the World

A new report from the World Bank just landed, finding that a record low of 10% of humanity now live in extreme poverty, down from 11% in 2013. But poverty rates aren’t anywhere close to equal between continents or even countries, as our new series of maps clearly demonstrates.

The World Bank provides an in-depth explanation for its methodology, which you can find in Appendix A of the full report here. We focused on the percentage of people in each country living below what the World Bank defines as extreme poverty, or $1.90/day. We’ll let the researchers defend this definition on their own, but there is one caveat to keep in mind. It can be extraordinarily difficult to collect reliable data from so many countries on a regular basis, and in fact we used the latest year in which numbers were available whenever possible. For example, in some of these maps we compare 2011 figures against 2015. In short, our maps provide the clearest possible apples-to-apples comparison for extremely poverty from around the world.

To start, there are several dark and light green countries scattered around the globe, from the United States down to Argentina and from Russia to Australia, there are lots of developed countries where very few people experience a subsistence standard of living. This is what people mean when they refer to the global North and South. To be fair, there are also several gaps in the available data in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Poland and Greenland. But none of these countries would change the overall story, that developed countries are much wealthier than everyone else.

It’s clear that the one continent with the most extreme levels of poverty is Africa. There are only five countries on the entire landmass where less than 5% of the population lives in abject poverty, and in fact most places have levels well over 25%. The only group of green countries is clustered to the north along the Mediterranean, notably the ones closest to Europe and furthest from the heart of Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo (77.1%) and Madagascar (77.6%) are at the epicenter of global extreme poverty. They are the 2 poorest countries on the planet, where it’s far more common to find someone living on less than $2/day than not.

There’s no better continent to illustrate the differences between the global North and South than Asia, but the 2 countries deserving special consideration here are China (0.7%) and India (21.2%). China has pursued an aggressive modernization effort under authoritarianism and one-party rule. By contrast, India is a democratic republic also undergoing a massive transformation. And according to PwC both countries will have economies larger than that of the United State by the year 2050. We’ll have to wait and see how the ongoing trade spat with President Trump changes these dynamics (or not).

South America also has an interesting story to tell. Keep in mind, the World Bank’s numbers are the latest available, which means 2015 or even 2011 for some countries. We mention this because the situation in Venezuela has rapidly deteriorated over the last few years with about 2 million people fleeing the country and inflation hitting 200,000%. Surinam (23.4%) and Honduras (16.0%) also stand out as pockets of deep poverty in the Western Hemisphere, and in fact many of the people in the caravan of migrants heading to the United States through Mexico originated from Honduras.

Skipping across the Pacific Ocean to Australia, we find a developed English-speaking country in Australia (0.5%) very close to countries in abject poverty like Papua New Guinea (38.0%) and Timor-Leste (30.3%). That being said, Australia generally has far friendlier immigration policies than other developed countries, so much so that one could say it has an “immigration economy.”

The winners in the global economy today are the same countries that colonized places life Africa and South America years ago. Indeed, the world looks decisively different in Western Europe, where only one country, Romania, has more than 5% of its population living in extreme poverty. Almost every country has fewer than 1% living in such a condition, and many report 0.0%. Social democracies with developed economies and rich in natural resources—there’s no wonder why so many immigrants want to move to the West.

And lastly, consider North America, where the rate of extreme poverty declines the further north one travels from Mexico (2.5%) to the United States (1.2%) and Canada (0.5%). There is actually an interesting comparison here, which is to say that the United States is proportionally home to more people subsisting on $1.90/day than China (0.7%). That being said, there are substantially more extremely wealthy people in the US than any other country in the world, not to mention the world’s largest economy at $19.4 trillion.

About the article

Published: 30 October 2018

Visualizing the Huge Disparities Between People's Wealth Around the World

Comparing wealth inequality numbers across several countries can be very tricky. Countries have different methodologies for calculating wealth. The cost of living varies dramatically within and between countries, plus there are all sorts of gaps in any dataset that incorporates information from Albania to Zimbabwe.

The Credit Suisse Research Institute has a highly respected approach in its Global Wealth Report. Credit Suisse defines “net worth” as the market value of all assets minus any outstanding debts. Researchers calculated average wealth numbers by for adults estimated to be living in each country. We took the figures (Table 2-1 in the report) and mapped them onto a heat map of the world. It’s important to note that average numbers like these can obscure crushing levels of poverty even in what appear to be wealthy countries, however they still provide an interesting snapshot of the wealthiest and richest countries in the world.

Looking at the average net worth across the entire world indicates the enormous disparity between the developed world and everyone else. At one extreme, there are countries with net worth numbers over $500,000, and at the other extreme, there are places where people have less than $500 to their names. There is a smattering or light orange countries in between, but the worldwide map demonstrates an astonishing level of inequality between the have’s and the have-not’s.

The story in North America is one of stark inequality. Northern countries like Greenland, Canada and the United States boast extremely high average figures. It’s no surprise that Americans are by far the wealthiest with $404K, but take a look at Mexico ($20.6K) and even the Bahamas ($47.8K). This means that the US is 10 times richer than the Bahamas and an eye-popping 20 times wealthier than Mexico.

South America on the other hand reports some rather depressing numbers. Chile has the highest average in the region at $62.2K, followed by the Cayman Islands and French Guiana (both at $55.3K). However, the average across all of Latin America is a tiny $24.4K. Haiti, one of the poorest places in the entire world, only has $2.5K per adult. That’s why immigration usually happens from the South to the North.

Europe is the most fascinating continent in our series of maps for a few reasons. There’s an obvious contrast between East and West running right down the middle of the region. Germany ($214.9K), the Czech Republic ($61.5K) and Austria ($231.4K) fall into the upper (green) tiers on our map, but right next door, countries like Poland ($31.8K), Slovakia ($34.8) and Hungary ($37.6K) remain far behind. And the further east you travel, the poorer the country. Ukraine ($1.6K) and Belarus ($1.5K) are both worse off than even the poorest countries in the entire Western Hemisphere. There’s another trend worth pointing out hiding behind our color-coded map, and that’s the difference in wealth between northern and southern European countries. In general, the further north and west, the wealthier the country.

The situation in Africa is simply depressing. Our map highlights the soul-crushing extreme levels of poverty found in places like Burundi ($321), Ethiopia ($167) and Malawi ($141). To put these numbers in perspective, the United States is well over 1,000 times wealthier on an average individual basis. There is one pocket of relative prosperity worth pointing out in Libya ($61.7K), but not even this is good enough to break the top 50 wealthiest countries in the world.

Our snapshot of wealth in Asia similarly provides an interesting view of the global economy. Take note of the line of relative poverty stretching from Syria in the west all the way to Vietnam on the Pacific Ocean. Now look at all the green countries, like Japan ($227.2K), South Korea ($171.7K) and Taiwan ($212.4K). Together with Singapore, Hong Kong, the UAE and Israel, these countries are all firmly aligned with American foreign policy and Western institutions. The wealth of these nations stands in contrast to adversaries like Russia ($20K) and China ($47.8K).

And finally, the picture of wealth in Oceania provides a nice bookend to our worldwide tour. Australia ($411.1K) and New Zealand ($289.8K) both stand out at the top of the pack, but some islands like French Polynesia, Palau and New Caledonia aren’t so far behind either ($203.9K each). Part of the explanation why is no doubt the robust and longstanding high-end tourism industries in these countries, which provide relatively strong individual wealth numbers.

Want to learn more about global poverty and inequality? Check out our other recent article on extreme poverty rates around the world.

About the article

Published: 12 November 2018

This Graph Shows Where the Filthy Rich Live in the World

It is hard to visualize how much $500M is in real life. Imagine giving away $100,000 to charity every week for the next 50 years and there would still be hundreds of millions left over. People with this kind of money are the captains of global capitalism. They can afford to live wherever they want and most undoubtedly own several different properties around the world. We created a new graph to better understand which countries are the most likely to be called home by holders of such unimaginable personal wealth.

The data comes from Knight Frank, a real estate and property consulting company. They publish an annual Wealth Report analyzing the property, location, and attitudes of the extremely wealthy. Knight Frank counted the number of individuals with over $500M in personal wealth who live in each country. Each piece of our modified pie chart corresponds to the number of ultra-wealthy people with their primary residence in each county. We color-coded each country by continent, creating an easy to understand snapshot of the distribution of the ultra-wealthy around the world.

The U.S. immediately stands out as the most popular with 1,830 individuals worth over $500M. That’s more than four times as many half-billionaires as the second-place country, China (490). A quick note on methodology: we separated Hong Kong (320 people) from China for counting purposes. Though Hong Kong has officially been part of China since 1997, the situation remains complicated. Even if we combine mainland China with Hong Kong (810 people combined), it still wouldn’t be even half of the U.S. number.  Germany takes third place in the rankings with 490 people, followed by Japan in fourth at 390. Special mention should be made of Switzerland:  this small, landlocked country in the middle of Europe is home to 250 half-billionaires. We suspect the country’s notoriously private banking laws are the main reason so many of the 0.001% call it home.

Our chart clearly demonstrates that the ultra-wealthy are concentrated on three continents: North America, Asia, and Europe. What is it about these places that make them so hospitable to multi-millionaires? There are a few possible explanations. Every country with 100 or more of these super-rich individuals is a democracy with the rule of law. The two exceptions are China (which just passed a law allowing its president to remain in power for life) and Russia (which just held an election widely seen as a sham by outside observers). Natural resources also allow countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to make the list, but the wealth just isn’t shared among nearly as many people.

Let’s take a step back. Here’s a list of the top 10 countries ranked in order of the number of people with more than $500M in personal wealth.

1. U.S. (North America): 1,830 people

2. China (mainland) (Asia): 490 people

3. Germany (Europe): 430 people

4. Japan (Asia): 390 people

5. Hong Kong (China) (Asia): 320 people

6. Canada (North America): 270 people

7. Switzerland (Europe): 250 people

8. France (Europe): 230 people

9. Russia (Russia): 220 people

10. U.K. (Europe): 220 people

Studying the high end of the wealth spectrum reveals a lot about the global economy. People with that kind of money have the resources and financial freedom to live anywhere in the world, but they have often chosen to make their homes in a few select countries. By this measure, the United States seems to remain far and away the best place to live for the ultra-wealthy.

About the article

Published: 27 March 2018