488

Just 0.001% hold three times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago

People might think that the extremity is a good thing as it will force change, which may be true, but realistically the world will be in for an extended period of conflict/war/suffering first and that period will probably last the rest of our lives.

Boomers hit that sweet spot. Now they get to check out as things are about to get real bad. Not that boomers everywhere in the world had it good. But a lot of them did.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 21 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago)

Boomers hit that sweet spot.

American boomers, maybe. The 60s/70s was real shit for most of the Third World.

Much of our modern Economic Anxiety driving MAGA and the reactionary insanity of our foreign policy is these same Boomers being forced to live in a world that isn't just the car dealerships in Detroit commanding the global economy.

For the 90s Kids, life outside the US hasn't been this good in a century or more. Whether you're in Bogota, Berlin, Beijing, or Bankok, it's a time of unprecedented plenty.

The fact that America isn't this shining city on a hill anymore is what Trumpsters find so galling.

[-] fort_burp@feddit.nl 1 points 14 minutes ago

What is to be done?

[-] brachiosaurus@mander.xyz 1 points 18 minutes ago

One of these 0.001% is valve ceo that many here on lemmy praise.

[-] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 3 minutes ago

Ah yes, because we should condemn people over a statistic, even when the things they do may actually warrant some praise.

[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 53 points 3 hours ago

Guillotines are surprisingly cheap to build.

[-] Sunflier@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago

[-] dangling_cat@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I started to feel that’s a mathematical issue, not an economic issue. Since the internet is a thing, a person’s influence and wealth can increase exponentially(benefiting from the networking effect aka power law), while the best tax law can do is still linear.

We need a tax law that grows exponentially. After certain points, it should collect almost 100% of the “controllable assets” (assets you can control, not necessarily owed).

But of course, we will never get it. People who have the will to climb the ladder tend to have less empathy for the masses, and they need to pay back to their stakeholders to help them get on top. It’s another paradox we need to deal with.

TBH the only thing that can fix humanity is extraterrestrial life lol.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 3 points 41 minutes ago

a tax law that grows exponentially

We've had this before, and can again. Look up FDR-era marginal rates.

[-] demonsword@lemmy.world 2 points 36 minutes ago

TBH the only thing that can fix humanity is extraterrestrial life lol.

It's an overused statement by now but it seems worth repeating: many people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

[-] LwL@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago

I would call it systemic, in fact I'd argue it's the central flaw of capitalism (but one that imo can be mostly fixed with heavy regulation and taxes scaling to near 100% as you say).

When wealth = power, those with wealth will always attract even more wealth.

[-] Pika@rekabu.ru 4 points 2 hours ago

Followed through until the doom and gloom. Organize!

[-] hedge_lord@lemmy.world 20 points 3 hours ago

This seems not conducive to the common wellbeing of humanity I think.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

Put a maximum net worth. Every dollar over it equals one punch to the kidneys.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 20 minutes ago

Great idea in theory.

Curious to know how we implement it in practice

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

let's make it "every one million dollar over it" and these greedy fucks would still not survive it.

[-] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

In the entire existence of humanity, class struggle still has yet to end.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 hours ago

The fact is money is relative. $100k USD is a lot of money in New Guinea and is not going to buy as much in London. This is why it is perfectly acceptable for someone like Thiel to assemble a private army with his wealth while people starve because they haven’t worked the grind correctly like Musk, Thiel or the Mountbatten-Windsors have /s.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

You had me in the first half...

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 35 points 6 hours ago

Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is poor.

[-] Bonifratz@piefed.zip 2 points 53 minutes ago

Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists. (G. K. Chesterton)

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 hours ago

Yet fewer people are poor because we instituted capitalist policies. Moving away from mercantilism was a great idea and benefitted most to a greater degree than mercantilism provides. Now we need to move beyond capitalism to address the failures of capitalism.

[-] Zombie@feddit.uk 16 points 2 hours ago

Because of capitalist policies or because of advancements in science, engineering, and medicine culminating around the same time that just happened to coincide with capitalism's birth?

Capitalism only benefits capitalists.

Fewer people are poor despite the capitalists, not because of.

Their giant hoards of wealth exemplify how many more could have been pulled out of poverty in the last 100-150 years.

[-] webp@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

Is there a digital collection that hosts propaganda images that are against the thieving wealthy?

[-] Mrkawfee@feddit.uk 33 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

60,000 is way to many. They need to be able to fit on a giga yacht.

[-] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

More like eventually building their own Elysium.

[-] Fluke@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago

Then we can shoot the fucker down and take them all out in one fell swoop. What a beautiful sunrise that would make.

[-] shittydwarf@piefed.social 14 points 6 hours ago

And then we make an artificial reef out of it

[-] Lembot_0006@programming.dev 10 points 7 hours ago

Some pressing and stomping and they will nicely fit to any rusted sea tanker.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 hours ago

That's 80'000 people vs. how much?

[-] alias_qr_rainmaker@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

It is true that the poorest people have very little money and the wealthiest people have a great deal of money, so the math checks out

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 6 hours ago

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.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 10 points 5 hours ago

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.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 6 points 4 hours ago

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.

[-] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago

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?

[-] realitista@lemmus.org 17 points 6 hours ago

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.

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 4 hours ago

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.

[-] Coldcell@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] Throbbing_banjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 hours ago

"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"

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] demonsword@lemmy.world 2 points 30 minutes ago

It’s almost like that’s a term used to discredit members of the working class.

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

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 6 points 4 hours ago

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.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 3 hours ago

Do you consider medical professionals "petit bourgeoisie" just because they earn more than the average?

Yes.

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 3 points 2 hours ago

Sounds like you need to pick up a dictionary. Maybe even a thesaurus.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 1 hour ago

Sounds like you need to look at their lifestyles and whether sick and dying are turned away due to no money or insurance.

[-] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

That isn't the doctor who does that. It's the insurance companies.

this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025

488 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51206 readers

2445 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.