The richest 1% of people - or just one person - gets one-fifth of this pie.

最有錢的前 1%——或者說只有一個人——擁有這五分之一的派。

But for the poorest half of the population - or 50 people - they have to share just half of that.

但對於最貧窮的另一半人口——或是 50 個人——他們必須分享前者一半的派。

That's what global inequality looks like today.

那就是現今全球貧富差距的樣貌。

And the difference between those slices of pie is only getting bigger.

而那些派的份量差距現在只會越來越大。

Global income has grown over the past four decades, but so has income inequality in nearly every region of the world.

全球所得過去四十年間已經增長許多，但幾乎世界上所有地區的收入不均也增長許多。

Huge growth in Asia, particularly China and India, has meant that the bottom 50 percent's income gained 12% of that overall growth.

亞洲巨大的增長，特別是中國與印度，意味著底層 50% 的收入占整體增長的 12%。

But that's nothing compared to the top 1%, which captured 27% of income growth.

但跟前 1% 的人比起來不算甚麼，他們獲得了 27% 的收入增長。

Those moves at the very top and bottom have left the global middle class squeezed.

在最頂端與底層的變動讓全球中產階級的人被壓縮。

The poorest 90% of the U.S. and EU's population falls within this bracket.

美國與歐盟最貧窮的 90% 人口就落在這個階層。

It's this rising inequality that exploded into the global Occupy Wall Street movement.

就是這種日益貧富不均現象引爆了全球的佔據華爾街行動。

And if you think the financial crisis would have helped level the playing field, think again.

如果你覺得金融危機有助於公平競爭，請三思。

The one percent's share has steadily increased since 2008.

從西元 2008 年以來，1% 人的份額正穩定成長。

And the source of wealth growth?

而財富成長的來源是？

It's heavily tilted towards the United States and the rise of financial assets.

很大程度傾向於美國與金融資產的崛起。

That's partly because banks started taking less risks after the financial crisis, meaning they've become less willing to lend to the poor and middle class.

那部份是因為銀行在金融危機後開始採取較小的風險，意思是他們變得不太願意把錢借給窮人或中產階級。

But the gap between the rich and poor differs depending on where you're looking.

但是富與貧之間的差距根據你著眼的區域而有所差異。

In Europe, the top 10

在歐洲，前 10% 的人獲取不到 40% 的所得。

In the Middle East, they capture more than 60%. So what's causing inequality?

在中東，他們獲取了超過 60%。所以是甚麼導致貧富差距？

An obvious contributor is China and Russia's move away from communism, but that's just a tiny portion of the explanation.

一個明顯的促成因素是中國與俄羅斯擺脫共產主義，但那只是一小部分的解釋。

Fast technological changes have led to a greater demand for skilled labor, while automation has eliminated many jobs.

當自動化排除掉許多工作時，快速的科技改變導致技術勞工的需求增加。

That has led to a growing earnings gap between high and low-skilled workers.

那便導致高技術與低技術勞工間的收入差距越來越大。

Until recently, trade was seen as a largely positive global force.

直到最近，貿易一直被視為是非常正面的全球影響力。

But now it's become the bogeyman for rising inequality.

但現在它變成提高貧富差距的魔鬼。

Some people in wealthier countries say they're losing out because good jobs are being outsourced to workers in developing countries.

有些富裕國家的人表示他們正在損失，因為好的工作被外包給開發中國家的勞工。

80% of Americans think sending jobs overseas harms America's workers.

80% 的美國人覺得把工作外包到海外傷害了美國的勞工。

But it's not that simple.

但並不是那麼簡單。

There's evidence that free trade has increased and decreased wages at the same time.

有證據證明自由貿易同時增加也減少了工資。

Take Apple for example.

舉蘋果公司為例。

It's created two million jobs in the U.S. but it's also created more than twice that in China.

它在美國創造了兩百萬個工作機會，但也在中國創造超過四百萬個工作機會。

In 2014, inequality came to the forefront of global discussion.

在西元 2014 年，貧富不均成為全球議題探討的最前沿。

That's because of French economist Thomas Piketty, who published a book called Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

那是因為法國經濟學家 Thomas Piketty 出版了一本書《二十一世紀資本論》。

Despite being 700 pages long, it became an international bestseller.

雖然是一本 700 頁的大部頭，它還是成為國際暢銷的書籍。

Piketty drew a distinction between wealth and income.

Piketty 在財富跟收入間做了區別。

His argument was that wealth, essentially a person's net worth, grows faster than income.

他的論點是，財富，本質上是一個人的淨資產，成長的速度快於收入。

That means the rich get richer, because their wealth grows faster from capital they own, like stocks and houses.

意思是有錢人會更有錢，因為他們的財富的快速成長是來自他們擁有的資產，像是股票與房屋。

This type of capital appreciates in value faster than wage growth, which salaried workers depend on.

這種類型的資本增值比薪水成長還快，而薪水是受薪階級依靠的收入來源。

So what can we do about it?

所以，對於這件事我們可以做些甚麼？

The IMF, Thomas Piketty and 100 other researchers have come up with some suggestions.

國際貨幣基金組織 (International Monetary Fund，簡稱 IMF)，Thomas Piketty 跟其他 100 位研究人員想出了一些建議。

But you're not going to like the first one.

但你不會喜歡第一個。

Taxes.

稅賦。

The United States pays much less tax when compared to Western European countries, and it has an impact on inequality.

美國跟西歐國家相比，繳的稅少多了，而這會影響到貧富差距。

The top one percent's share of income in the U.S. has risen dramatically, while that inequality is much more moderate in Western Europe.

美國前 1% 人的收入份額急遽上升，而在西歐這樣的貧富不均程度較為緩和。

Economists say this is largely because of taxes.

經濟學家說這大部分是因為稅賦。

While it's commonly believed that taxes discourage people from working and investing more, good tax policies help governments to redistribute wealth for a more equal society.

儘管通常人們相信稅賦會阻礙人們做更多的工作以及投資，但好的稅賦政策可以幫助政府進行財富重分配，打造更平等的社會。

On top of that, the IMF also found that higher income taxes for the rich do not hurt growth.

除此之外，國際貨幣基金組織也發現對富人課徵更高的所得稅不會影響經濟成長。

But that's if people actually pay them.

但那也要人們真的有繳稅的話。

At least 10% of global GDP is being held in tax havens.

至少有 10% 的全球國內生產毛額 (Gross Domestic Product，簡稱GDP) 被控制在避稅港。

In six European countries alone, €350 billion is estimated to be hidden away.

僅在 6 個歐洲國家，估計就有 3500 億歐元被藏起來了。

Shareholders benefit most from tax havens.

股東從避稅港中獲益最多。

But governments and societies suffer from the huge loss of revenue, which could be invested in public services and infrastructure.

但政府與社會遭受大量的稅收損失，這些稅收可以投資在公共服務與基礎設施中。

That's bad news for another potential solution - better access to quality education and job opportunities.

那對另一個潛在解決方案來說是個壞消息 —— 更容易獲得優質的教育與工作機會。

Finally, the IMF found that rich countries with less unionisation are associated with an increase in the share of income of the top 10%.

最後，國際貨幣基金組織發現，富裕國家的組織工會較少與收入前 10% 的收入份額增加有所關連。

In Denmark, domestic policies led to fast food workers making $20 an hour, that's twice of what they make in the United States.

在丹麥，國內政策導致速食店勞工時薪達到 20 美元，是美國的兩倍。

Despite having no minimum wage, unions dominate in the small country.

儘管沒有最低工資限制，公會在這個小國也占據主導地位。

That's guaranteed them a living wage and benefits their American counterparts could only dream of.

那保證了他們擁有足以生活的工資與津貼，是美國同行渴望的待遇。

Some say that inequality incentivises innovation and productivity.

有些人說貧富不均激勵的創新與生產力。

But inequality causes political and economic instability, and the IMF says it hurts economic growth.

但貧富不均導致政治與經濟的不穩定，還有國際貨幣基金組織表示貧富不均損害經濟成長。

If we want to make this pie bigger overall, its slices are going to have to get more equal first.

如果我們想要讓這個派整體變得更大，首先它每一片都必須更平均。

Hey everyone it's Xin En. Thanks for watching.

嗨，各位，我是 Xin En。感謝你的收看。

If you want to check out more of our CNBC videos, click here and here.

如果你想要看看更多 CNBC 的影片，點擊這裡。

As always, feel free to leave any suggestions for future videos in our comments section.

一如往常，請自在地在留言區留下對未來影片的建議。

Don't forget to subscribe and see you next time.

別忘了訂閱，我們下次見。