I was listening to a depressing BBC radio report last night about impoverished tea pickers in Sri Lanka, and I got to thinking: I like tea. I drink tea nearly every day. In fact, I'm drinking a cup right now: a hot, soothing reminder of how so many of the everyday comforts and luxuries we Westerners enjoy are made affordable (or even possible) by the exploitation and/or suffering of others.

Yes, I've read my Adam Smith, so I understand how free trade between nations, with each focusing on producing and exporting goods for which they enjoy a respective advantage, should enrich all of us. Theoretically. So I'm not preparing to launch into any sort of communist screed.

But that radio report did get me wondering how my own standard of living would be impacted if global income were distributed absolutely equally? You know, how much would I have to curb my own consumption if a Tamil tea picker were to earn as much each year as the tea plantation owner, or a Wall Street banker, or a writer at The Stranger?

It turns out, quite a lot.

According to a World Bank report, the average per capita income worldwide was $9,097 in 2010. That's below the $10,890 poverty line for a single person, as set by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

That's right, if we divvied world income up evenly (not equitably, but evenly) the vast majority of humans would live a helluva lot better... but every single one of us would be poor (by US standards). $67 trillion just doesn't buy as much as you think it does.

Sorta. There's a lot of room to play around with these numbers, so I don't want to overstate the point. But regardless, average world per capita income is a whole lot less than what I currently earn at The Stranger. Not that I want to give Tim any ideas.

Kind of depressing, if you think about it.