Fewer than 60,000 people – 0.001% of the world’s population – control three times as much wealth as the entire bottom half of humanity, according to a report that argues global inequality has reached such extremes that urgent action has become essential.
The authoritative World Inequality Report 2026, based on data compiled by 200 researchers, also found that the top 10% of income-earners earn more than the other 90% combined, while the poorest half captures less than 10% of total global earnings.
Wealth – the value of people’s assets – was even more concentrated than income, or earnings from work and investments, the report found, with the richest 10% of the world’s population owning 75% of wealth and the bottom half just 2%.
In almost every region, the top 1% was wealthier than the bottom 90% combined, the report found, with wealth inequality increasing rapidly around the world.
“The result is a world in which a tiny minority commands unprecedented financial power, while billions remain excluded from even basic economic stability,” the authors, led by Ricardo Gómez-Carrera of the Paris School of Economics, wrote.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare incomes across the planet without considering cost and quality of life it buys.
For example, my current salary working in London is some seven to ten times higher than what I’d be earning in Hungary - but the differences in cost of living (okay arguably my quality of life is better though) means that general long term goals like buying a flat, will take about the same time to get started with (mortgage application, saving for deposit, etc.), and same time or even longer to finish (as in fully paid off).
Compared to a poverty-stricken African country sure I’m better off, but equating high earners with the true source of the problem, the aforementioned 60 thousand people, is disingenuous in my opinion. High earners aren’t the problem - generational wealth that “generates” more wealth is.
Those 60,000 people have so much money that you can factor in cost of living on the moon and they’d still have thousands of times better lives than anyone on earth.
You do realise that I’m NOT part of that 60k and I wasn’t defending them, right?
Read the second part of the damn post ffs, where it equates high earners with the highest wealth people as if they’re equally the issue.
Dw man, I hear what you’re saying, I can read. I kind of agree that it’s PRIMARILY those 60k chucklefucks that have ruined humanity, but I’d say that ultra high cost of living and therefore artificially boosted wages, value, worth, all of it is a consequence of this capitalist surge of “line must go up”. The rat race has always existed, as has inequality, but the appeal of trying to right the balance by donating, volunteering, etc. has all but died out. If you’re not living hand to mouth, most of us should be helping the poor, it’s just such a fucking absurdly diminished prospect given the giant cancer of the ultra rich. We need to fix it and get some goddamn compassion back.
“things are hard for the petit-bourgeoisie too” really isn’t the argument you think it is lol.
There’s a pretty huge difference between “my expenses are a lot and I’m kind of illiquid right now” and “gee I hope I can eat this week”
What happens if the petit-bourgeoisie stop working? No food? Oh shiiiiit.
It’s almost like that’s a term used to discredit members of the working class. Don’t go throwing away allies in the fight to end the rich.
Most of them don’t see themselves as part of the working class and are directly contributing to the current status quo we see around us
If you look at the polling on the universal policies then you’ll see they very much do. It’s hard not to be aware that you would starve if you didn’t have a job.
Petit bourgeois are generally NOT part of the working class. They’re by definition the lower segment of the middle class (European style class structure where lower class IS the working class, middle class distincts itself by the fact they’re not required to be in employ of others to make their income).
Then the term definitely doesn’t apply to the “professional” class in the US. You generally aren’t hanging your own shingle until late in your career or if you came from money. Doctors are very much reliant on employers here and most of the West.
What is the salary range of a Physician General Practitioner? As of December 01, 2025, the average salary for a Physician General Practitioner in the United States is $245,390 per year, which breaks down to an hourly rate of $118. However, a Physician General Practitioner’s salary can vary significantly. Here’s a look at the typical salary range:
Top Earners (90th percentile): $292,769 Majority Range (25th-75th percentile): $231,690 to $270,190 Entry-Level (10th percentile): $219,217
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/physician-general-practitioner-salary
I’d say $118/hr is petit bourgeois.
Sure, and what do you call a doctor without an employer?
Either rich or unemployed.
If they don’t come from money then they aren’t going to work for themselves until late in their career. Just like good trades people. Having toys doesn’t mean shit if your existence is still predicated on employment.
Then maybe they shouldn’t be class traitors. Same with tech workers, nurses, cops, etc.
And maybe if a doctor can save a life, they should do that and take up bills with the state.
Living inside the system is not consent to the system. Comparing doctors to cops is ridiculous. Cops entire reason for existence is to defend the system.
Holy shit is this instance full of idiots.
Who the fuck said anything about petit bourgeoisie? A high EARNER still has to work, dipshit. Still has to produce something to get paid. We’re not talking about landlords here, or shitheads living off investments, but people like DOCTORS. Do you consider medical professionals “petit bourgeoisie” just because they earn more than the average?
And even high earners can be in the “gee I hope I can eat this week” category.
But please do skip my point about cost of living being important when it comes to wages, and fight a completely made up argument you put in my mouth because fictional BS is easier to fight than what I actually said.
Yes.
Sounds like you need to pick up a dictionary. Maybe even a thesaurus.
Sounds like you need to look at their lifestyles and whether sick and dying are turned away due to no money or insurance.
That isn’t the doctor who does that. It’s the insurance companies.
Sadly, private practices also do that. I have neighbors who are “noncompliant” because they can sometimes scrape together enough for either a single visit, or meds, usually not both.
We often have to pass around donation envelope to help a neighbor afford a visit and/or prescription, and if more than one is sick at a time, those donations aren’t enough and have to be split.
Private practices have a lot of money to pay for insurance: medical-malpractice insurance, insurance related to the building (fire, storm, robbery, etc.), insurance related to employment, and so on.
Removed by mod
You lost me at your first word which was a slur.
Removed by mod
People like you always have this kind of take because you’re benefiting from the system that allows such a gross gap in wealth. That’s why things won’t change. The very small group of ultra wealthy has a much larger army of “my experience isn’t so bad” types walking around thinking like you do.
Where the fuck did I say that? Fucking hell, the state of Lemmy at times…
I’m literally advocating for change here, BY FUCKING TELLING Y’ALL TO NOT BLAME THE FELLOW WORKER, but the actually wealthy.
The top 10% earners make approx. $120k a year. Which seems a lot, given there are people in India who make less than 1% of that in a year.
But that wealth disparage is NOTHING compared to the difference between said high earner (whose real income will be maybe 1/3 of what they make, after taxes, rent, etc.), and one of the 60k.
My point is still to blame the members of the 60k, not those who make $60k.
The class war got into people’s heads as ‘working - middle- upper’ but now it’s really ‘worker - owner’.
Do you need a paycheque, or do your assets alone feed you?
A lecture I listened to over the spring (in health related field, no less!) noted that those who are reluctant to end corruption are usually benefitting in some way from the corruption.
See US politics.
Put the litmus test away. PPP is a real thing and pretending it isn’t is not going to earn you any friends. A two bedroom condo in the US is easily 600,000 USD. The problem isn’t the people trying to get off the rental treadmill it’s the people making prices that high so we need high wages to live. In other words, the elite in the wealthiest countries are fucking everyone over, not just Panamanian farmers.
No it’s the billionaires and also the millionaires that own only a few houses or apartments because we’ve allowed basic necessities to become paths to financial security. Those non billionaires are benefiting from the same mechanisms the elite have installed, but get less flack because their level of wealth doesn’t seem as bad. Someone making $32k a year or less is getting screwed harder than someone making $132k by the system that makes the $1m+ a year club.
Nobody is disputing that.
The far more troubling problem to me is the division of wealth inside the countries. If we tackled that then there would also be a lot more money for the workers at the foreign owned factory in Hungary. You are right that the national income isn’t the problem, but you’re missing that the wealth gap in the wealthiest countries feeds the gap between countries and regions too.