You can very probably obtain a much different result and most likely more accurate by doing this:
Looking at a few metrics should be enough for you to understand that this article from The Economist is some kind of "everything is going well"-centrist-propaganda.
All of the above are criticizable indices, by themselves. However, if you take the time to superpose those statistical markers, you'll get a much better picture than whatever The Economist is trying to say in this article
The ratio of spending is a poor metric to measure equality. All it really shows is that the “poor” are getting milked for everything they earn and own. Energy costs, fuel, water, basics like bread and butter, insurance, even doing something nice - all at sky-high prices driven by nothing else but greed. Oh, and farewell to the middle class…
> All it really shows is that the “poor” are getting milked for everything they earn and own
How are you concluding that? The only way I can see that could be true is if the bottom 50% has shifted their meagre savings to spending in an effort to stay afloat.
I find this to be dubious because the bottom 50% was never saving much at all in the first place. For context, the median income across planet earth is $850 USD _per year._ There's not a lot of room at the bottom for savings.
Yeah, that struck me too. Measuring wealth by spending disguises inequality because higher earners have less reason to spend more, and the difference in freedom to choose not to spend more is a large part of the inequality.
There are interesting aspects to the data, but they overstate what the numbers they present tell us about inequality.
It also ignores a similar phenomenon among the poor. Decreased self-supply.
In a rich country this might mean paying for childcare so you can work. Your expenditure has gone up, but you are only better off by the increased post tax income less the cost of childcare. Even worse is paid childcare has substituted for family provided (e.g. grandparents) childcare.
In a poor country it might mean buying food instead of growing it. An industrial worker will buy their food, a subsistence farmer will grow their own. There is a huge increase in expenditure, but they might well end up with a worse diet.
This is not new. The initial workforce for the industrialisation of Britain (the first country to industrialise) was available because of the enclosure of common land forced people to seek work in cities.
The point is that the unspent income has significant value.
I earn a multiple of the UK median. Above a lower multiple of the median, the primary increased value I got out of earning more was the freedom to stop thinking about what an increasing subset of things cost. I still need to think about what my housing cost, but I don't know what most groceries cost, because it doesn't matter to me.
The mental cost of detail budgeting, planning, and saving for most smaller costs, as well as the associated anxiety, is something I never want to pay again.
My actual spending thus tells a flawed story about the advantage I have over someone earning less.
Power. Why do you think people who already have huge amounts of money want more? Money is a way of acquiring power.
That is why billionaires typically give money away by putting it in foundations they control (so they keep the power) rather than just giving it to poor people (which would be more effective as people could spend it on what they most need).
power is one aspect but i think it is valid for billionaires to have power.
buying goods is the other aspect and the poor and the rich more or less consume similarly.
i do want to live in the world where money doesn't dictate _consumption_ as much as power. money has to mean something, and its good that it goes into power more than consumption. that means the poor can have a dignified life to buy what they want but they don't get to dictate how money will be allocated.
Marx said that concentration of wealth can be a good thing as rich people can invest their money in capital heavy things, such as factories, whereas poor people tend not to do that.
Despite the common image, Marx was a huge fan of capitalism. He thought it was a huge step forward, and not least that capitalism was an absolute necessity to bring production to a level where he believed socialism would become possible... He just also thought it had flaws that he believed would eventually make it obsolete.
This is as disingenuous as saying that both the rich and the poor consume the same amounts of calories, nutrients, oxygen and water, and hence they are not that different.
The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time.
The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time.
The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. This in turn helps them perpetuate their privilege. For instance, they can fund narratives that normalize inequality and lobby for lower taxes.
The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this.
One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more.
>The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time.
I agree with you on this.
>The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time.
In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working.
Over 75% are self made billionaires and for sure these people work more than twice as hard as normal people. The others do normal jobs and I can't really find examples of non self made billionaires slacking off.
>On average, the CEOs participating in the study worked 9.7 hours per weekday and 62.5 hours per week. They also worked on the majority of their days off, on average 3.9 hours on weekend days and 2.4 hours on vacation days.
Poor people don't work as hard for many reasons
1. they don't want to
2. they don't have the opportunity to
3. they don't have the health
But that also does not mean that billionaires have more free time. It's usually not the case, simply because they are more invested in their ventures.
>The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence.
I agree but this is a caveat against the fact that the rich and the poor consume equally. Sure they can influence, but at the end of the day they consume the same which is more important for sustenance. Power and influence come higher in the hierarchy.
>The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this.
Agreed.
>One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more.
This buys into zero sum ideology of wealth. It is incorrect, misguided and a big mistake to think like this.
> In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working.
Dont forget about inherited privileges. If work was the primary driver of wealth, we'd see a much more even distribution. I suspect the eager CEOs either want to inflate their contribution (i know plenty who dont) or actually work more because it is their earning and not just salary plus maybe arbitrary bonus.
> Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working.
> But that also does not mean that billionaires have more free time. It's usually not the case, simply because they are more invested in their ventures.
There is a difference between working because you want to, vs working because you have to. The rich have the choice to quit working if they want to and still pay no significant price - the poor don't have this choice. The rich also don't have to put up with disagreeable work, whereas the poor often do.
This is a question of human freedom and dignity - not just of material wealth.
I'd also challenge the notion that the poor don't "work hard". The food delivery guy who works 8 hours a day often in disagreeable weather is arguably working much harder than many rich people.
> I agree but this is a caveat against the fact that the rich and the poor consume equally.
If you consider purchase of political influence as consumption, then your statement doesn't hold. You are only counting the basic necessities of life as consumption - but there are many services that you can purchase as a rich person that poor people cannot.
> This buys into zero sum ideology of wealth.
I'd say that it’s a mistake to treat wealth as either purely zero-sum or purely positive-sum - a false dichotomy. It has both these natures, depending on the level of analysis and the time horizon.
Wealth can grow collectively over time through productivity gains, technological improvement, and better organization of labor. That is the positive-sum aspect, and I don't deny that.
However, at any given moment, wealth is only meaningful as long as it can be exchanged for real goods and services. At the bottom of all such goods and services lie two fundamental inputs: human labor and natural resources. Both are finite as a matter of physics and biology.
Hence while we do see the amount of goods and services ballooning (and hence total "wealth" growing) primarily due to better utilization of human labor and better extraction of natural resources, there is also a sense in which wealth has a zero-sum nature especially in the short term (i.e., several decades, which is relevant for humans).
What is their definition of self made? Zero inherited wealth? I doubt it. People who crossed the threshold? You can do that sitting on investment gains.
CEOs and billionaires are different groups. Those willing to take part in a study are not a random sample. Its a sample sample too. The numbers depend on self reporting.
You are buying into the myth of wealth going to those who create it. Most wealth is accumulated by being on the right end of transfers,and pricing power.
The thing is that buying a hamburger while knowing you can afford to buy a billion more of them is not the same as buying a hamburger knowing you can't afford another one.
if you think someone with 1B is the same as someone with every month a minus number on their account then you are deluded.
A good measure of prosperity is quality of life, which sadly in our wonderful civilization one needs to buy with money.
And a little note. Billionaires do not eat the same food, do not take the same healthcare, and do not buy similar consumer goods for the most part. Maybe they will get the iPhone, but if you think a poor person can afford an iPhone maybe you also don't really understand what it is to be poor.
Poor people fighting hungerpains working their shit jobs. Poor people suffer from mental ailments induced by the stresses of being poor.
In 1970 1 oz of gold was ~$35 (by statute); today gold is $5,100; a few years ago it was well under two thousand dollarydoos.
Almost everybody is broke. A better way to look at this is to realize that 2025 was the highest year of spending by the Top [whatever-percentage] of consumers. The US fiat dollar's superior global position is waning, and this'll rot all economies & classes.
We're literally watching the final steps of "Trickle Down Economics" — where the wealth falls up [first slowly, then fast]. Add in some thinking machines — and it's just 21st century "slavery... with extra steps" (–R&M)
Background: I live in a working class duplex neighborhood, adjacent to newer lakeside mansions. Few neighbors have any college education; the majority don't pay taxes (if any, net). My community is mostly pleasant, but I definitely wouldn't raise a family here (mostly single moms and blue collar workers).
Yesterday among the poorest of neighbors said to me "I'm just trying to live a simple middle class life" — and I chuckled (rudely)... then responded "I'm among the wealthier people living on this street, and I'm not even middle class anymore — and we both still rent."
We're two tenants literally scrubbing out a former smoker tenant's filth, for rent credit, so that the next working class tenant can pay this distant slumlord more Rent. Yeah, we're rich... /s
…in the 21st century the world economy has kept getting more equal.
…Spending inequality within countries can tell a different story. Some rich countries became more unequal in the late 20th century even as global inequality fell. In the past decade the richest 10% have pulled away from the poorest 50% in Japan, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden.
> The Chinese did rather well in the age of globalization. In 1990, 943 million people there lived on less than $3 a day measured in 2021 dollars – 83% of the population, according to the World Bank. By 2019, the number was brought down to zero. Unfortunately, the United States was not as successful. More than 4 million Americans – 1.25% of the population – must make ends meet with less than $3 a day, more than three times as many as 35 years ago.
> Income and wealth inequalities have been on the rise nearly everywhere since the 1980s, following a series of deregulation and liberalization programs which took different forms in different countries. The rise has not been uniform: certain countries have experienced spectacular increases in inequality (including the US, Russia and India) while others (European countries and China) have experienced relatively smaller rises.
This article is deceitful. I dont understand why you get downvotes.
The context of the quote was criticism of the Economist pacifism, while Lenin was trying to use the war to instigate a revolution that will end with the deaths of millions
Let us all be very happy about "The World" since the libertarians at the Economist tell us we are living in a egalitarian world. It is only a minor anomaly that a very small group of Billionaires decide our political agendas and tell our Governments what to do. And now that "Big Governments" are being down sized even the wildest dreams of the libertarians at the Economist are coming true. What could be better than this ?
It’s a really good caveat against the tired old cliche that inequality is always rising. I found it interesting that while wealth inequality increases, the poor and rich are starting to consume more equally. Why do you not find it relevant?
https://archive.is/20260204074047/https://www.economist.com/...
You can very probably obtain a much different result and most likely more accurate by doing this:
Looking at a few metrics should be enough for you to understand that this article from The Economist is some kind of "everything is going well"-centrist-propaganda.
Suggested metrics:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_in...
Based on the Gini Coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
Based on the HDI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
3.
And finally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
---
All of the above are criticizable indices, by themselves. However, if you take the time to superpose those statistical markers, you'll get a much better picture than whatever The Economist is trying to say in this article
The ratio of spending is a poor metric to measure equality. All it really shows is that the “poor” are getting milked for everything they earn and own. Energy costs, fuel, water, basics like bread and butter, insurance, even doing something nice - all at sky-high prices driven by nothing else but greed. Oh, and farewell to the middle class…
> All it really shows is that the “poor” are getting milked for everything they earn and own
How are you concluding that? The only way I can see that could be true is if the bottom 50% has shifted their meagre savings to spending in an effort to stay afloat.
I find this to be dubious because the bottom 50% was never saving much at all in the first place. For context, the median income across planet earth is $850 USD _per year._ There's not a lot of room at the bottom for savings.
Yeah, that struck me too. Measuring wealth by spending disguises inequality because higher earners have less reason to spend more, and the difference in freedom to choose not to spend more is a large part of the inequality.
There are interesting aspects to the data, but they overstate what the numbers they present tell us about inequality.
It also ignores a similar phenomenon among the poor. Decreased self-supply.
In a rich country this might mean paying for childcare so you can work. Your expenditure has gone up, but you are only better off by the increased post tax income less the cost of childcare. Even worse is paid childcare has substituted for family provided (e.g. grandparents) childcare.
In a poor country it might mean buying food instead of growing it. An industrial worker will buy their food, a subsistence farmer will grow their own. There is a huge increase in expenditure, but they might well end up with a worse diet.
This is not new. The initial workforce for the industrialisation of Britain (the first country to industrialise) was available because of the enclosure of common land forced people to seek work in cities.
What would you rather use then? Ultimately you have money to spend right? What other point?
Income. Wealth.
The point is that the unspent income has significant value.
I earn a multiple of the UK median. Above a lower multiple of the median, the primary increased value I got out of earning more was the freedom to stop thinking about what an increasing subset of things cost. I still need to think about what my housing cost, but I don't know what most groceries cost, because it doesn't matter to me.
The mental cost of detail budgeting, planning, and saving for most smaller costs, as well as the associated anxiety, is something I never want to pay again.
My actual spending thus tells a flawed story about the advantage I have over someone earning less.
Power. Why do you think people who already have huge amounts of money want more? Money is a way of acquiring power.
That is why billionaires typically give money away by putting it in foundations they control (so they keep the power) rather than just giving it to poor people (which would be more effective as people could spend it on what they most need).
power is one aspect but i think it is valid for billionaires to have power. buying goods is the other aspect and the poor and the rich more or less consume similarly.
i do want to live in the world where money doesn't dictate _consumption_ as much as power. money has to mean something, and its good that it goes into power more than consumption. that means the poor can have a dignified life to buy what they want but they don't get to dictate how money will be allocated.
Marx said that concentration of wealth can be a good thing as rich people can invest their money in capital heavy things, such as factories, whereas poor people tend not to do that.
Despite the common image, Marx was a huge fan of capitalism. He thought it was a huge step forward, and not least that capitalism was an absolute necessity to bring production to a level where he believed socialism would become possible... He just also thought it had flaws that he believed would eventually make it obsolete.
Spending is the best way to measure prosperity. What else would you use?
If a billionaire has similar health care, eats similar food and buys similar phones, then in reality they are actually quite similar to the poor.
This is as disingenuous as saying that both the rich and the poor consume the same amounts of calories, nutrients, oxygen and water, and hence they are not that different.
The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time.
The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time.
The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. This in turn helps them perpetuate their privilege. For instance, they can fund narratives that normalize inequality and lobby for lower taxes.
The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this.
One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more.
>The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time.
I agree with you on this.
>The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time.
In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working.
https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/pr...
Over 75% are self made billionaires and for sure these people work more than twice as hard as normal people. The others do normal jobs and I can't really find examples of non self made billionaires slacking off.
https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-m...
>On average, the CEOs participating in the study worked 9.7 hours per weekday and 62.5 hours per week. They also worked on the majority of their days off, on average 3.9 hours on weekend days and 2.4 hours on vacation days.
Poor people don't work as hard for many reasons
1. they don't want to 2. they don't have the opportunity to 3. they don't have the health
But that also does not mean that billionaires have more free time. It's usually not the case, simply because they are more invested in their ventures.
>The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence.
I agree but this is a caveat against the fact that the rich and the poor consume equally. Sure they can influence, but at the end of the day they consume the same which is more important for sustenance. Power and influence come higher in the hierarchy.
>The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this.
Agreed.
>One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more.
This buys into zero sum ideology of wealth. It is incorrect, misguided and a big mistake to think like this.
> In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working.
Dont forget about inherited privileges. If work was the primary driver of wealth, we'd see a much more even distribution. I suspect the eager CEOs either want to inflate their contribution (i know plenty who dont) or actually work more because it is their earning and not just salary plus maybe arbitrary bonus.
I agree work is not the primary driver but competence + luck. Competence is not evenly distributed.
Dont forget inherited privileges like soft skills, acquaintances, insider knowledge, preferencial treatment/positive discrimination.
Which is how most "self made" billionaires made their money.
> Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working.
> But that also does not mean that billionaires have more free time. It's usually not the case, simply because they are more invested in their ventures.
There is a difference between working because you want to, vs working because you have to. The rich have the choice to quit working if they want to and still pay no significant price - the poor don't have this choice. The rich also don't have to put up with disagreeable work, whereas the poor often do.
This is a question of human freedom and dignity - not just of material wealth.
I'd also challenge the notion that the poor don't "work hard". The food delivery guy who works 8 hours a day often in disagreeable weather is arguably working much harder than many rich people.
> I agree but this is a caveat against the fact that the rich and the poor consume equally.
If you consider purchase of political influence as consumption, then your statement doesn't hold. You are only counting the basic necessities of life as consumption - but there are many services that you can purchase as a rich person that poor people cannot.
> This buys into zero sum ideology of wealth.
I'd say that it’s a mistake to treat wealth as either purely zero-sum or purely positive-sum - a false dichotomy. It has both these natures, depending on the level of analysis and the time horizon.
Wealth can grow collectively over time through productivity gains, technological improvement, and better organization of labor. That is the positive-sum aspect, and I don't deny that.
However, at any given moment, wealth is only meaningful as long as it can be exchanged for real goods and services. At the bottom of all such goods and services lie two fundamental inputs: human labor and natural resources. Both are finite as a matter of physics and biology.
Hence while we do see the amount of goods and services ballooning (and hence total "wealth" growing) primarily due to better utilization of human labor and better extraction of natural resources, there is also a sense in which wealth has a zero-sum nature especially in the short term (i.e., several decades, which is relevant for humans).
What is their definition of self made? Zero inherited wealth? I doubt it. People who crossed the threshold? You can do that sitting on investment gains.
CEOs and billionaires are different groups. Those willing to take part in a study are not a random sample. Its a sample sample too. The numbers depend on self reporting.
You are buying into the myth of wealth going to those who create it. Most wealth is accumulated by being on the right end of transfers,and pricing power.
It was incredible to see Bezos go from subsistance farmer to whatever it is now. Such a journey. I really enjoyed the documentary. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35291758/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_...
The thing is that buying a hamburger while knowing you can afford to buy a billion more of them is not the same as buying a hamburger knowing you can't afford another one.
but if everyone's buying one hamburger at the end of the day, it has to mean something
if you think someone with 1B is the same as someone with every month a minus number on their account then you are deluded.
A good measure of prosperity is quality of life, which sadly in our wonderful civilization one needs to buy with money.
And a little note. Billionaires do not eat the same food, do not take the same healthcare, and do not buy similar consumer goods for the most part. Maybe they will get the iPhone, but if you think a poor person can afford an iPhone maybe you also don't really understand what it is to be poor.
Poor people fighting hungerpains working their shit jobs. Poor people suffer from mental ailments induced by the stresses of being poor.
There is no parallel.
how do you want to measure it?
>A good measure of prosperity is quality of life, which sadly in our wonderful civilization one needs to buy with money.
how do you propose measuring quality of life? by how the billionaire spends money right? that's exactly what they have done here.
Middle class in rich countries is getting impoverished and converging with the poor countries, I guess that’s one way to become “more equal”.
People don't like to live below their means in the US. Consumerism
Can you provide evidence?
middle class is shrinking
https://www.pew.org/en/trust/archive/fall-2024/the-state-of-...
> Middle class in rich countries is getting impoverished
this is not what your article claims
it literally is
> Households in all income tiers had much higher incomes in 2022 than in 1970, after adjusting for inflation
?
>after adjusting for inflation
"Lies, damn lies, statistics."
In 1970 1 oz of gold was ~$35 (by statute); today gold is $5,100; a few years ago it was well under two thousand dollarydoos.
Almost everybody is broke. A better way to look at this is to realize that 2025 was the highest year of spending by the Top [whatever-percentage] of consumers. The US fiat dollar's superior global position is waning, and this'll rot all economies & classes.
We're literally watching the final steps of "Trickle Down Economics" — where the wealth falls up [first slowly, then fast]. Add in some thinking machines — and it's just 21st century "slavery... with extra steps" (–R&M)
all this is misleading. the reality is that all the income levels are doing better.
can you provide evidence?
... primarily because households which would have been middle-class now have upper-class incomes instead.
And the increase in low income is due to...?
More people attending college, for a start. The increase in low-income households is much smaller than the increase in high-income households.
Background: I live in a working class duplex neighborhood, adjacent to newer lakeside mansions. Few neighbors have any college education; the majority don't pay taxes (if any, net). My community is mostly pleasant, but I definitely wouldn't raise a family here (mostly single moms and blue collar workers).
Yesterday among the poorest of neighbors said to me "I'm just trying to live a simple middle class life" — and I chuckled (rudely)... then responded "I'm among the wealthier people living on this street, and I'm not even middle class anymore — and we both still rent."
We're two tenants literally scrubbing out a former smoker tenant's filth, for rent credit, so that the next working class tenant can pay this distant slumlord more Rent. Yeah, we're rich... /s
…in the 21st century the world economy has kept getting more equal.
…Spending inequality within countries can tell a different story. Some rich countries became more unequal in the late 20th century even as global inequality fell. In the past decade the richest 10% have pulled away from the poorest 50% in Japan, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden.
> even as global inequality fell
Real economists would consider separating statistical outliers like china.
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03057...
> Without China and India, global interpersonal income inequality in 143 countries was higher in 2015 than in 1988.
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/23/china-us-pov...
> The Chinese did rather well in the age of globalization. In 1990, 943 million people there lived on less than $3 a day measured in 2021 dollars – 83% of the population, according to the World Bank. By 2019, the number was brought down to zero. Unfortunately, the United States was not as successful. More than 4 million Americans – 1.25% of the population – must make ends meet with less than $3 a day, more than three times as many as 35 years ago.
> https://wir2022.wid.world/executive-summary/
> Income and wealth inequalities have been on the rise nearly everywhere since the 1980s, following a series of deregulation and liberalization programs which took different forms in different countries. The rise has not been uniform: certain countries have experienced spectacular increases in inequality (including the US, Russia and India) while others (European countries and China) have experienced relatively smaller rises.
This article is deceitful. I dont understand why you get downvotes.
"The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires" - Lenin
Guess the only thing that's changed is inflation.
The context of the quote was criticism of the Economist pacifism, while Lenin was trying to use the war to instigate a revolution that will end with the deaths of millions
Inflation in Lenin's time was either negligible or astronomical. Just depends on what country and coinage you look at.
Let us all be very happy about "The World" since the libertarians at the Economist tell us we are living in a egalitarian world. It is only a minor anomaly that a very small group of Billionaires decide our political agendas and tell our Governments what to do. And now that "Big Governments" are being down sized even the wildest dreams of the libertarians at the Economist are coming true. What could be better than this ?
Gaslighting in mass media, pseudo-literati form to manufacture the desired sentiment against the interests of ordinary people.
[flagged]
It’s a really good caveat against the tired old cliche that inequality is always rising. I found it interesting that while wealth inequality increases, the poor and rich are starting to consume more equally. Why do you not find it relevant?