01 / 05
Time Equality Is Increasing Dramatically

Blog Post | Food & Hunger

Time Equality Is Increasing Dramatically

Instead of comparing differences in income between people, we should compare how we spend our time today versus yesterday.

Summary: A common way to measure inequality is by comparing differences in income between people or countries. However, this approach may overlook a more important dimension of human well-being: how we spend our time. Using data from the World Bank, this article shows that time inequality has dramatically declined over the past six decades.

The Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson notes that you should “compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not who someone else is today.” Since we all get exactly 24 hours a day, and no one can really buy time (otherwise, rich people would never die), it might also be better to compare differences in how we spend our time. Instead of comparing differences in money income between people, we should compare differences in how we spend our time today versus yesterday.

According to the World Bank, in 1960, nominal gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China was $89.50. By 2021, it had increased by 13,929 percent to $12,556. Over the same period, nominal GDP in India increased by 2,671 percent from $82.19 to $2,277.43, and in the United States, it increased from $3,007 to $69,287, or by 2,204 percent.

Chinese GDP per capita grew six times faster than the U.S. GDP per capita. The ratio of China to U.S. GDP per capita in 1960 was 33.6. By 2021, it had fallen to 5.52. The ratio of India to U.S. GDP per capita in 1960 was 36.6. By 2021, it had fallen to 30.4. China is making pretty good progress, but there is still a significant gap in GDP per capita.

Perhaps a better way to compare inequality is with time. Let’s start with the time to earn the money to buy a basket of basic food. The World Bank tracks the nominal price of rice, wheat, and maize (corn). These three commodities represent the most common sources of calories around the planet. An index of the nominal prices indicates an increase of 418 percent from a base value of 1 in 1960 to 5.18 in 2021.

Comparing the cost of this three-food index to GDP per capita in China over this period indicates a 96.3 percent decrease in the time price. Put differently, if the Chinese needed to work eight hours to earn the money to buy their food in 1960, they only needed to work around 18 minutes in 2021. For the time it took to buy one unit in the three-commodity basket in 1960, they would get 27 units in 2021. The Chinese gained 7 hours and 42 minutes a day to devote to other activities.

The time price of a three-commodity basket fell by 81.3 percent in India. Indians who might have needed to work eight hours to buy their food in 1960, needed to work only around 90 minutes to do the same in 2021. For the time it took them to buy one unit in the three-commodity basket in 1960, they got 5.35 baskets in 2021. Thus, they gained 6 hours and 30 minutes a day.

In contrast, using the three-commodity basket as an index, people in the United States, who may have had to work an hour a day to earn enough money to buy their food in 1960, only needed to work around 13.5 minutes to do the same in 2021. The time price of the three-commodity basket fell by 77.5 percent. For the time it took them to earn enough money to buy one unit in the three-commodity basket in 1960, they got 4.45 baskets in 2021. Americans gained 46.5 minutes a day to devote to other activities.

From this perspective, the difference (or time gap) amounted to 420 minutes between Chinese and Indians on the one hand and Americans on the other hand in 1960. By 2021, the time gap dropped to 76.5 minutes for Indians and 4.5 minutes for Chinese. For every minute Americans gained, Chinese gained almost 10 and Indians gained 8.4. Time inequality has dramatically declined.

As new knowledge and innovation decreases the time price of basic food items, people have much more time to devote to other activities, including leisure and learning. And when people have the time to get on learning curves and discover new knowledge, we all benefit.

You can learn more about these economic facts and ideas in our new book, Superabundance, which is available at Amazon.

Blog Post | Economic Growth

Measuring Freedom and Flourishing | Podcast Highlights

Chelsea Follett interviews Leandro Prados de la Escosura about the long term trends in wellbeing, inequality, and freedom.

Listen to the podcast or read the full transcript here.

Let’s discuss your latest book, Human Development and the Path to Freedom.

I have spent many years working on economic performance in the long run, and while I don’t have anything against GDP, I was always uneasy with the idea of using GDP per head as a shortcut for wellbeing. GDP is a good indicator of output but a very deficient indicator of wellbeing.

Most economists say, “This is true, but it’s highly correlated with non-economic dimensions of wellbeing.” There is also a tendency to produce a dashboard of indicators, basically GDP and some additional measures that create a more nuanced picture.

I was unhappy with that. Then I realized that, since the beginning of modern national accounts in the 1950s, there have been attempts to produce alternative measures. More than 30 years ago, the United Nations Development Programme produced the Human Development Index. I was very interested, but at the same time, I was frustrated when I saw that countries with no freedom at all ranked very highly in the index.

For example, in the first report in 1990, they had a retrospect going back to 1975, and I found that Spain, under Franco’s dictatorship, ranked very highly in human development. How come? It wasn’t satisfactory to rank a nasty dictatorship so highly. And then I read the literature accompanying the report and found this very candid assertion: “The purpose of human development is to increase people’s range of choices. If they are not free to make those choices, the entire process becomes a mockery.”

This is an important philosophical point: Human development is not just about living longer or having a higher material standard of living. You can get that in a high-security prison in Norway. Choosing between alternative ways of life is what makes the difference.

To make a long story short, they have tried time and again to introduce freedom, but they never managed to do so because of strong political opposition from country members of the program. So, as an independent scholar, I thought, “Look, nobody is going to read it, but I have the freedom to introduce the freedom dimension.”

Tell me about what you found.

Perhaps what makes sense is to compare what I found to what you would get on the basis of per capita income. If you look at the average increase from 1870 to 2020, the growth in income and wellbeing is very similar.

But if you look closer, you realize there are large differences across different periods. During first globalization before 1913 and between 1970 and 2000, they are relatively close. During the last two decades, the difference is huge in favor of material living standards measured by per capita income. The first part of the 20th century is just the opposite.

What next? Well, try to provide an explanation.

I went in two steps. One was asking, “Why has this growth in human wellbeing happened? What is the intuition?” The intuition is that if you get richer, you’re going to become better fed, healthier, better educated, and freer. But you can also have different levels of wellbeing at the same income level, and the most important finding from a historical perspective is that at any point of income, you have higher wellbeing today than in the past.

If you compare 1870 to 1913, you see that for most of the income levels, you get the same association between health and income, but at high levels of income, you get higher levels of health. Improvements in health techniques and medical knowledge were restricted to the most advanced countries. But if you look at the 1950s, at any income level, you get higher levels of health than in 1913 or 1870. You also find this for education and freedom. If you move to 2000, there is another upward shift.

Of course, there are reversals. There have been four moments in time in which the progression, the positive progression of human development stopped or declined. One was the Great Depression. The second one was during Mao’s Great Leap Forward. Then there were the oil shocks in the early ’70s, but the most damaging one has been COVID. COVID is the first period in which wellbeing measured in terms of augmented human development has declined

However, over the long run, for any income level, whether you are rich or poor, nowadays you have higher wellbeing than in the past.

Those findings are fascinating. What would you say is the biggest implication of your work?

The first thing is that wellbeing, broadly defined, has expanded worldwide more steadily than per capita income.

Secondly, the phases in which we conventionally associate improvements in wellbeing are not necessarily the same as those in which actual wellbeing improved. For instance, there was an important improvement in the so-called interwar period, even though economic growth stagnated. In 20th-century India, before independence, there was a stagnation in real average income but a remarkable improvement in health. This was because of the discovery of the germ theory of disease, which brought simple hygienic practices like washing your hands before eating and not sleeping near animals.

We also tend to forget that the association between wellbeing and income is not fixed. There are movements along the function: if you are richer, other things being equal, you’re going to be healthier, more educated, and freer. But this is not the whole story. There are also upward and downward shifts.

For instance, you could say that in terms of freedom in 2020, we are worse off than we were 20 years ago. This doesn’t mean that people were richer 20 years ago—we’re richer now—but at the same income level, 20 years ago, people were freer than we are today.

So, it’s a nuanced picture. Overall, things are improving, but there are also worrying declines in freedom.


Can you talk about inequality?

In 1870, in the case of wellbeing, inequality was high, and it increased up to the end of the century, then went down. Then, because of World War I, it increased again. But from the late 1920s to the present, with the exception of a reversal because of World War II, there has been a steady decline in inequality of wellbeing.

In the case of per capita income, inequality increased until the end of the 20th century, around 1980, and only began declining after 1990.

Here, I’m referring to relative inequality. If we increase wealth by 10 percent everywhere, inequality in relative terms doesn’t change. Some people are a bit pickier and think, “If my income increases 10 percent and my income is 100, I get 110. If your income is 1000, you now get 1100.” This is absolute inequality.

Relative inequality in per capita income increased until 1980 and has declined since 1990. But absolute inequality in per capita income, the distance between rich and poor, continues growing.

Absolute inequality in wellbeing has declined since 1960. Today, it is similar to what you would find in 1938, 1913, or 1900, but higher than in 1870.

It’s also important to look at what happens to different parts of the distribution. Who are the winners and losers? Broadly speaking, the middle class of the world gained the most, and the lower classes and those at the top won relatively less. If you look at absolute gains, those who were at a higher level of wellbeing got more. But that changes for different dimensions. Those at the bottom, for example, were the main winners in terms of education, while those in the middle were the main winners in terms of health.

I know that your current focus is on freedom. Could you tell me a little bit about that?

I became interested in human development after reading Amartya Sen, who emphasizes what Isaiah Berlin would call positive freedom. Freedom to. But he also emphasizes negative freedom, the absence of coercion and interference. And I think this is interesting because many people think there is a trade-off between negative and positive freedom.

At the end of the day, everybody wants to have negative freedom, but there are those who think negative freedom has nothing to do with income, that would be Hayek, and those who think negative freedom can only be reached as a second stage once you provide for those who don’t have access. For some, positive freedom is a socialist lie to reduce negative freedom. For others, they are two faces of the same coin.

As an economic historian, I find this is an interesting topic for research. If you look at the world, and you can see this in the Human Freedom Index that Cato publishes, you see the countries at the top in terms of negative freedom are also at the top in terms of positive freedom. For instance, Denmark is at the top of the list in terms of economic freedom, but also in terms of education and health.

My question was, well, maybe this trade-off is only a short-run phenomenon. Maybe if you look at the long run, the trade-off doesn’t hold or only holds for a certain period. So why not construct two alternative sets of estimates, one for positive freedom and the other for negative freedom? And this is what I’m trying to do now.

My main discrepancy with the Fraser Institute economic freedom index is that I don’t take into account the size of government. I know this is a contentious issue. People say, “the larger the government, the less room for private initiative.” At a point in time, this is true. And if you look at similarly developed countries, this is true.

But if you take a cross-section at a point in time, you can see that there are countries in which the size of government is much, much smaller, that are not necessarily freer, in terms of absence of coercion and interference, than countries with larger governments. Look at, for instance, Latin American and Sub-Saharan African countries. Think of Somalia. Or think of my own country under Franco. It was a right-wing, but, in many aspects, very socialist dictatorship in which the government was everywhere. But the size of government was very small.

In 1980, do you know what percentage the income tax contributed to the revenues of the central government in Spain? Give me a figure. You would say 40 percent?

Sure, 40 percent.

2 percent.


Nobody paid income tax. So, there was no redistribution.

My point is that the size of government matters less than the nature of government. Perhaps Denmark would have more economic freedom with a smaller government, but if you compare Denmark to other countries, you can see that even though the Danish government is larger, Denmark’s degree of economic freedom is higher. Why? Because the nature of government action is different. It doesn’t interfere as much as another government that is less intrusive in quantitative terms but more intrusive in qualitative terms.

So, if you are looking at a point in time, it makes sense to say, “mutatis mutandis, if a rich country nowadays has a smaller government, this country is going to be freer.” That is true. But the action of government varies from one case to another.

Get Leandro Prados de la Escosura’s book, Human Development and the Path to Freedom: 1870 to the Present, here.

The Human Progress Podcast | Ep. 48

Leandro Prados de la Escosura: Measuring Freedom and Flourishing

Leandro Prados de la Escosura, an emeritus professor of economic history at Carlos III University in Spain, joins Chelsea Follett to discuss long term trends in wellbeing, inequality, and freedom. To see the slides that accompany the interview, watch the video on YouTube.

Blog Post | Human Development

1,000 Bits of Good News You May Have Missed in 2023

A necessary balance to the torrent of negativity.

Reading the news can leave you depressed and misinformed. It’s partisan, shallow, and, above all, hopelessly negative. As Steven Pinker from Harvard University quipped, “The news is a nonrandom sample of the worst events happening on the planet on a given day.”

So, why does Human Progress feature so many news items? And why did I compile them in this giant list? Here are a few reasons:

  • Negative headlines get more clicks. Promoting positive stories provides a necessary balance to the torrent of negativity.
  • Statistics are vital to a proper understanding of the world, but many find anecdotes more compelling.
  • Many people acknowledge humanity’s progress compared to the past but remain unreasonably pessimistic about the present—not to mention the future. Positive news can help improve their state of mind.
  • We have agency to make the world better. It is appropriate to recognize and be grateful for those who do.

Below is a nonrandom sample (n = ~1000) of positive news we collected this year, separated by topic area. Please scroll, skim, and click. Or—to be even more enlightened—read this blog post and then look through our collection of long-term trends and datasets.



Farming robots and drones

Food abundance

Genetic modification

Indoor farming

Lab-grown produce


Other innovations

Conservation and Biodiversity

Big cats




Other comebacks



Rivers and lakes

Surveillance and discovery

Rewilding and conservation


Culture and tolerance

Gender equality

General wellbeing


Treatment of animals

Energy and natural Resources



Fossil fuels

Other energy

Recycling and resource efficiency

Resource abundance

Environment and pollution

Climate change

Disaster resilience

Air pollution

Water pollution

Growth and development


Economic growth

Housing and urbanization

Labor and employment



Disability and assistive technology

Dementia and Alzheimer’s


Heart disease and stroke

Other non-communicable diseases



Other communicable diseases

Maternal care

Fertility and birth control

Mental health and addiction

Weight and nutrition

Longevity and mortality 

Surgery and emergency medicine

Measurement and imaging

Health systems

Other innovations



    Artificial intelligence



    Construction and manufacturing


    Robotics and automation

    Autonomous vehicles


    Other innovations


    AI in science


    Chemistry and materials






      Blog Post | Income Inequality

      Stone Age Anti-Capitalism

      Our hunter-gatherer past helps explain opposition to free markets.

      Summary: This article argues that capitalism faces persistent opposition because it goes against some of our innate psychological traits that evolved in the Stone Age. It explains how our ancestors lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers who shared food and resources, and how they developed tendencies toward tribalism, egalitarianism, and zero-sum thinking. It suggests that these tendencies make us susceptible to anti-capitalist ideologies and suspicious of markets, trade, and innovation.

      The free market, or, to use a more loaded term, capitalism, produces more wealth and higher standards of living than any other economic system that humanity has conceived and implemented. The differences in economic performance between South and North Korea, West and East Germany, Chile and Venezuela, Botswana and Zimbabwe, not to mention the United States and the Soviet Union, speak for themselves. In spite of that generally recognized fact, capitalism has never enjoyed anything close to universal long-term support. In fact, quite the opposite is true. As the commentator and retired classicist Steven Farron put it: 

      There have been innumerable political parties called socialist. In the history of the world, there has never been a single political party called capitalist. There is not even a name for a supporter of capitalism. A socialist champions socialism; a democrat champions democracy. But a capitalist is someone who owns and manipulates capital.

      Why? The primary reason for the constant struggle to preserve the freedom of the market is that capitalism rubs against some very important parts of human nature. As Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby put it in their 1992 book The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture:

      What we think of as all of human history — from, say, the rise of the Shang, Minoan, Egyptian, Indian, and Sumerian civilizations — and everything we take for granted as normal parts of life — agriculture, pastoralism, governments, police, sanitation, medical care, education, armies, transportation, and so on — are all the novel products of the last few thousand years. In contrast to this, our ancestors spent the last two million years as Pleistocene hunter-gatherers, and, of course, several hundred million years before that as one kind of forager or another. These relative spans are important because they establish which set of environments and conditions defined the adaptive problems the mind was shaped to cope with: Pleistocene conditions, rather than modern conditions.

      Among the relevant psychological characteristics that humans developed in the Pleistocene were our propensities toward tribalism, egalitarianism, and zero-sum thinking. We evolved in small bands composed of 25 to 200 individuals. We all knew and were often related to one another. Everyone knew who contributed to the band’s survival and who shirked his or her responsibilities. Cheaters and free riders were targets of anger and, sometimes, punishment. Just as important, cheaters and free riders lost valuable cooperative partners. The latter would work with more reliable or generous individuals instead.

      In such bands, the sharing of food was common. The storing of food for future consumption, on the other hand, was not practical for seminomadic people. So, when hunters or gatherers acquired more food than their families could consume, they “stored” it in the form of social obligations (i.e., they shared it with other members of the band, in the expectation that the favor would be returned in the future). How widely the foragers shared food was sensitive to whether variation in foraging success was due primarily to luck or to effort.

      Luck played a large role in hunting success. Hunters who had worked hard often came home with nothing. So meat was shared widely within the band as a way of pooling risk and buffering against hunger. When effort played a larger role in foraging success, as it did with the gathering of many plant foods, sharing was more targeted. In these cases, the gathered foods were shared primarily within the family and with specific reciprocation partners.

      Moreover, the volume of personal possessions was limited by what our ancestors could carry on their backs as they moved from one location to another. In other words, accumulation of property and wealth inequality could not have been major concerns. Also, like other animals, we have evolved to form hierarchies of dominance; an individual’s survival and ability to pass on his genes were enhanced if he could rise within a group and control access to greater resources. But humans also evolved to form coalitions, in which less dominant individuals cooperated to take down the stronger and more successful. Finally, sharing and cooperation among hunter-gatherers ended at the band’s edge, so to speak. In a world without specialization and trade, disproportionate gains by one band often came at the expense of another. By forming aggressive coalitions, men could expand their band’s foraging territory or gain more wives by cooperating to kill men from other bands.

      The hunter-gatherer psychology helps to explain our contemporary attitudes toward the extent and freedom of the market. Consider, for example, the provision of health care. When a hunter got sick or injured, he could not go on hunting. His sickness or injury was a double whammy for the band. Not only did the stricken hunter cease to contribute to the band’s survival, but he also needed to be fed and cared for. Furthermore, no one could guarantee that a stricken hunter would ever be able to hunt again. So humans benefited as they evolved the ability to feel compassion and surrounded themselves with caring individuals. Feelings of compassion and acts of caring contrast with calculated and profit-seeking exchanges in the marketplace. Employers, for example, tend to pay wages and provide benefits to their employees not because they care about their employees’ welfare but because they want to make money. In other words, the employer calculates that the productivity of the employee outweighs the cost of the employee’s compensation.

      Market exchanges, then, are signs of social distance, whereas illness or injury activates our hunter-gatherer intuitions about helping others. The notion of socialized medicine as a fix to the problem of bad luck, which is usually the cause of sickness or injury, satisfies those intuitions. Conversely, the notion of market-based health care is completely counterintuitive — and remains so even if it can be shown that people get better results from a market-based health-care system. Note that people are much less sympathetic to the government’s paying for the health care of patients whose illness is not caused by bad luck, such as smokers with lung cancer. When people want to advocate helping patients with lung cancer, they usually turn to arguments about addiction — e.g., he or she could not help smoking; the evil tobacco company knowingly sold an addictive product to him or her as a teenager, etc.

      The hunter-gatherer psychology also helps to explain why it was relatively uncontroversial for many governments to pass huge spending bills at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was not a lack of effort that prevented most people from working. Instead, government-enforced stay-at-home orders kept them from earning money. Moreover, it helps to explain why later spending bills, such as the $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan” that was passed by the Congress after the economy had already largely reopened, were much more controversial. Put differently, many arguments about the various aspects of the welfare state and the extent of market exchanges follow straightforwardly from the different sharing rules that have evolved to deal with the variance of fortunes due to luck and the variance due to effort.

      To summarize, the psychology that evolved when our ancestors lived in small hunter-gatherer groups prepared us to cope with a world of personal cooperation and exchange in small communities. It did not prepare us to cope with a world of impersonal cooperation and exchange between millions of people (i.e., a typical advanced economy) or billions of people (i.e., the global economy). In a way, the complexity of the modern economy outran the ability of our Stone Age minds to understand it. Yet it is that transition, from personal simplicity to impersonal complexity, that makes capitalism so effective at producing great wealth. To complicate matters further, the extended marketplace of millions or billions of people enables enterprising individuals with value-creating ideas to amass greater wealth than they would be able to amass while catering to small communities. That resulting wealth inequality rubs against our egalitarian predispositions and zero-sum thinking. Finally, our tribalism helps to explain why, even when we do consent to trade with other nations, we often continue to resent them and suspect them of thriving at our expense.

      To understand capitalism — let alone to appreciate its benefits — requires all of us to distinguish between the personal and the impersonal, between the simple and the complex, and between the limited and the extended. Or, as the ever-insightful Friedrich Hayek put it:

      Part of our present difficulty is that we must constantly adjust our lives, our thoughts and our emotions, in order to live simultaneously within different kinds of orders according to different rules. If we were to apply the unmodified, uncurbed rules of the micro-cosmos (i.e., of the small band or troop, or of, say, our families) to the macro-cosmos (our wider civilization), as our instincts and sentimental yearnings often make us wish to do, we would destroy it. Yet if we were always to apply the rules of the extended order to our more intimate groupings, we would crush them. So we must learn to live in two sorts of world at once.

      Striking a balance between those two sets of rules is a difficult task, and we often fail to do so. When we do fail — as, most recently, in Venezuela — the results can be catastrophic. The predictable collapse of Venezuela’s “21st-century socialism” should provide a warning to future generations; given our inability to learn from the very similar socialist failures of the 20th century, though, it’s unlikely that it will be heeded. I suspect that the defense of free markets will remain, thanks to the predispositions of the Stone Age mind, a never-ending struggle.

      This first appeared in the National Review.