When you ask children what they want to be, many likely say YouTuber, Influencer, or some other variant of that theme.
Influence is a complicated thing. From an abstract perspective, it's the ability to affect someone else's behavior. A high schooler can influence their classmates. As entrepreneurs, we can influence our employees, our industry, and more. You can have immense influence over a small number of people or a little bit of influence over many people - both still count as "influence."
But, in this case, many of the most popular influencers aren't famous for changing the world; they are celebrities or just famous for being famous.
Below is a chart of the top 50 "influencers" by social media platform.
via visualcapitalist
In the digital age, it's worth acknowledging social reach as power. People with a large platform have the opportunity to exert enormous influence - and it's why you often see the spread of misinformation reach far, fast.
It would be interesting to see how many of these people use their platforms to be a beacon to their followers (rather than a beacon to attract followers).
It would also be interesting to see how much (or little) engagement many of these "influencers" actually have with their followers (and how that level of engagement relates to the growth or decay of their followings).
While I assume that the readers of this post aren't in the business of being "Influencers," Most of us recognize the value of influence – and getting more of it.
As a result, it is probably worth thinking about influence as an asset. And now is time to think strategically about how to grow and use that asset better.
The Data on Wealth Distribution in the US
Talking about wealth distribution can lead to contentious discussions.
The fact that one group has "more" of something literally means it is not equal to what someone else has ... but does it imply that it isn't fair or just? The arguments get nuanced fast.
Even how you look at the statistics can be confusing. You can focus on which group has what percentage of the pie. Or you could focus on which groups are gaining or losing based on the share they used to have of the pie. With that said, remember that the pie can grow or shrink, and the percentage of a population in a demographic can change as well. What you choose to focus on, and what you decide it means, impacts your stance on the meritocracy or unfairness of what is happening (and what we should do about what is happening).
So, while many people point to the increasing wealth of the 1%, it's worth discussing whether this represents inequality or simply the asymmetric distribution of wealth.
via visualcapitalist
Today, the top 1% of the U.S. owns about 31.2% of the total wealth. That's up from 28.6% in 2010.
However, the total wealth pool has increased from $60 trillion to $112 trillion in that same period.
In other words, each demographic has seen an increase in wealth over the past ten years. A larger percentage of the pie has gone to the 1%, but each demographic has benefitted and our collective economic pie has grown.
So, what drives the asymmetric distribution of wealth?
There are multiple factors, but to name just a few:
Are things better? Are things good enough? Do we have to do something? If so, what?
Is this a red herring to distract us from other issues?
I'm curious to hear what you think about this issue.
Posted at 10:57 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Ideas, Market Commentary, Science, Trading, Trading Tools | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)