fbpx
01 / 05
Oxfam’s Questionable Income Inequality Numbers

Blog Post | Income & Inequality

Oxfam’s Questionable Income Inequality Numbers

Oxfam’s imagination knows no bounds when it comes to reporting that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Summary: Every year, Oxfam releases a report claiming the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer, a narrative often accepted without scrutiny by the media. Oxfam’s methodologies and figures are frequently manipulated to fit this narrative, obscuring the significant global reduction in extreme poverty over the past two centuries.


Year after year, the anti-capitalist organization Oxfam publishes a report to coincide with the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland. And year after year, claims from these reports are blindly regurgitated by media outlets worldwide. The message is the same every year, but Oxfam always repackages it using every marketing and public relations (PR) trick in the book. What is the message? The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Although the second part of the sentence is untrue, Oxfam’s imagination knows no bounds when it comes to making it appear to be true.

This year, Oxfam compared the wealth of the planet’s five richest men, which has doubled, with that of the five billion “poorest,” which has fallen. Why five billion? With eight billion people living in the world, one wonders whether as many as five billion people actually live in poverty. No. According to the 2023 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index, the figure is 1.1 billion. According to World Bank data, and depending on which definition of poverty you use, the figure is 659 million (extreme poverty) or 1.8 billion.

I don’t know of any definition that classifies five billion people in the world as poor. So how did Oxfam come up with that number? Quite simply: two “fives” fit together: the five richest and the five billion poorest.

There is another more important reason: the number of people living in extreme poverty has been falling almost continuously for years; the decline was only interrupted by the COVID-19 crisis. Before capitalism emerged, most of the global population was living in extreme poverty. In 1820, the rate was 90 percent; today, it has fallen below 9 percent. Most remarkably, over the past few decades, the decline in poverty has accelerated more rapidly than in any phase of human history. In 1981, the rate was 42.7 percent; in 2000, it had fallen to 27.8 percent; today, it is 8.5 percent!

But that doesn’t fit with Oxfam’s thesis. So, Oxfam arbitrarily increased the number of poor people to five billion so that the findings fit its thesis.

And to ensure that the increase in wealth of the super-rich is particularly strong, Oxfam chose March 2020 as the point of comparison for its latest report. Why 2020 and not 2022 or any other year? Because, in March 2020, the wealth of the super-rich fell sharply due to the pandemic stock market crash, so the increase is particularly drastic in comparison.

With all this sleight of hand, Oxfam arrives at its message this year that the wealth of the five richest has more than doubled, while the world’s five billion “poorest” have lost $20 billion during the same period.

If the Figures Don’t Fit the Message, Change the Methodology

The so-called study changes its figures and methodology every year and always in such a way that it achieves the greatest PR impact. For example, in 2017, Oxfam announced that the eight richest men were worth more than the poorest half of the global population. This has been repeated hundreds of thousands of times in “news” articles all over the world. A great PR success! If you do an online search for “eight men own the same amount of wealth as half the world,” you will get millions of hits.

In 2016, Oxfam attracted widespread attention with a report claiming that the wealth of the world’s 62 richest people was equivalent to that of the poorer half of the world’s population. To make the message that inequality is rising at breakneck speed particularly clear, Oxfam simply changed the methodology behind its calculations from one year to the next. If Oxfam had used the same method in 2016 as it did in 2017, then 9 people, not 62, would have owned more wealth than the poorer half of the world.

The calculation was questionable because the “poorer half of the world” included a surprising number of people in the developed world—including, for example, in the United States—who had taken out loans to buy a house or finance their studies. At the time, the London School of Economics criticized Oxfam, saying that it was misleading at best to count an average university graduate with debts of around £50,000 as one of the poorest people in the world. Especially as this totally ignores their future income potential. According to Oxfam’s calculation, a German pensioner who had just taken out a small loan to buy a car was poorer than a farmer in Burundi.

Normally, numbers are used to clarify the facts of a matter. But not at Oxfam, where numbers are used to obscure facts.

Blog Post | Cost of Living

Introducing the American Abundance Index

American living standards are best measured in time.

We are excited to share a new tool we’ve been building at Human Progress: The American Abundance Index—an interactive dashboard that tracks US living standards while adjusting for both inflation and rising incomes.

The idea is straightforward: how many hours do you need to work to afford the same basket of goods and services? Using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the American Abundance Index converts price and wage growth into “time prices”—the amount of work time required to buy the Consumer Price Index (CPI) basket of goods and services—and “abundance,” which is the inverse: how much of that basket one hour of work can buy. When time prices fall, abundance rises, and each hour of work goes further. That’s the measure of affordability that actually matters.

Conceptually, this work builds off of Superabundance, a book by our editor, Marian Tupy, and his coauthor and Human Progress board member, Gale Pooley. Their core argument—that abundance is best measured in time—forms the foundation of the project. The index itself was built by our Quantitative Research Associate, Jackson Vann.

Users can select multiple worker categories, compare short- and long-run trends, and even see wage growth modeled to reflect real career progression rather than freezing workers in place. All the calculations are transparent and replicable, with the full dataset and code available on GitHub.


So what does the index actually say about American standards of living?

Over the past 12 months, inflation rose 2.68 percent while hourly earnings for the average private-sector worker grew 3.76 percent. As a result, the CPI basket became 1.05 percent more abundant. Since 2006, it has become nearly 14 percent more abundant—roughly equivalent to adding an hour of purchasing power to the average workday.

The Economist | Income & Inequality

The World Is More Equal than You Think

“At first glance the global economy looks more uneven than ever: billionaires’ fortunes keep breaking records, asset prices have soared and voters across rich countries insist that life is getting harder and more expensive. Yet in the 21st century the world economy has kept getting more equal.

Data released on January 20th, covering 194 countries and economies, and compiled by the World Data Lab, a research firm, show that the ratio between spending by the world’s richest 10% and the poorest 50% has more than halved since 2000. Back then, the rich spent about 40 times more than the poor; today the figure is closer to 18. Over the same period, the richest 1% have also seen their share of consumption shrink.

The shift is driven mostly by gains in low- and middle-income economies, rather than changes in rich countries. Poorer countries have grown faster than rich ones and consumption has risen with incomes. The ratio of average American to Indian spending, for instance, has more than halved over the past 25 years, from more than 16 to less than eight.”

From The Economist.

Cato Institute | Income & Inequality

COVID-19 Slowed but Couldn’t Stop the Fall in Global Inequality

“Over the long run, global inequality has declined dramatically across many dimensions as living standards have improved. While a substantial reduction in worldwide inequality occurred between 1990 and 2021, the last two years in that range reveal far slower progress, reflecting pandemic-era stagnation. These findings underscore the vital role of undisturbed markets in sustaining the trajectory of human progress, as well as the vulnerability of political liberty in times of perceived crisis. The Inequality of Human Progress Index reveals that pandemic-driven shocks to the global economy slowed advances, halting the momentum of earlier growth across many measures of human well-being and stalling progress toward the world becoming better off and more equal…

The pandemic’s disruption to globalization, trade, and other forms of economic activity measurably slowed the pace of human progress as captured by the Human Progress Index. However, the updated HPI and Inequality of Human Progress Index also demonstrate the remarkable resilience of the modern world. Even amid significant disruptions, on average, only a limited decline has been registered in living standards across most of the HPI’s dimensions.”

From Cato Institute.

Blog Post | Cost of Material Goods

Why Your Groceries Are Cheaper than Kevin McCallister’s

Since 1990, grocery abundance has increased by 43.2 percent and pizza abundance by 285 percent for blue-collar workers. If you were upskilling, it was 186 percent for groceries and 610 percent for pizzas.

Summary: A famous grocery run in Home Alone appears to illustrate how much nominal prices have risen since the film came out in 1990. But a look at sticker prices alone misses the bigger picture. When costs are measured against what people earn, everyday food looks far more affordable than it once did. Thanks to rising nominal wages and ongoing innovation, modern households enjoy far greater abundance, even when nominal prices appear higher at first glance.


In the 1990 movie Home Alone, eight-year-old Kevin McCallister went grocery shopping. He bought a half gallon of milk, a half gallon of orange juice, a TV dinner, bread, frozen mac and cheese, laundry detergent, cling wrap, toilet paper, a pack of army men, and dryer sheets. His bill came to $19.83.

Professor Christopher Clarke at Washington State University does an annual price analysis of Kevin McCallister’s shopping basket and estimates that today’s price for those items would be around 114.5 percent higher ($42.54) than was the case in 1990. But, as my readers know quite well, things can become more expensive and more affordable at the same time. How is that possible? It’s possible because wages typically increase faster than prices. In the past 35 years, blue-collar hourly wages have increased by 207.7 percent, from $10.32 per hour in 1990 to $31.76 today.

Kevin’s basket in 1990, in time prices, would have cost 1.92 hours compared to 1.34 hours today. The time price of Kevin’s basket has fallen by 30.2 percent. For the time it took to earn the money to buy the basket of goods in 1990, you get 1.432 baskets today. Grocery abundance has increased by 43.2 percent.

If you got your first job in 1990 as an entry-level worker and have been upskilling for the past 35 years and are now an average worker, your hourly wage rate increased 511.3 percent: from $6.03 an hour in 1990 to $36.86 an hour today. Your grocery basket time price fell by 65 percent, giving you 2.86 baskets today. Your grocery abundance has increased by 186 percent.

In the movie, the McCallister family also orders 10 pizzas, and the bill comes to $122.50 (plus tip). That would put the time price for 1990s blue-collar workers at 11.87 hours, or about one hour and 11 minutes per pizza.

Professor Clarke did a price check on how much 10 classic cheese and pepperoni pizzas cost at a Little Caesars pizzeria near the McCallister’s home today—it comes to only $98.09 (plus tip). The nominal price has actually shrunk! That would put today’s time price at 3.08 hours for the 10 pizzas, or about 18.5 minutes per pizza. The time price has fallen by 74 percent. That means that for the time it took to earn the money to buy one pizza in 1990 you get 3.85 pizzas today. Pizza abundance has increased by 285 percent. If you are an upskilled worker, your pizza time price fell by 85.9 percent, giving you 7.1 pizzas today for the time price of 1 in 1990, thus increasing your abundance by 610 percent.

Hopefully you didn’t forget to count the kids before taking off on Christmas vacation this year! And remember, life can become more abundant every day if people are free to innovate.

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.