I’m afraid you are right. I fell into a rabbit hole yesterday trying to find were the claim of this article came from. I looked into the study itself, and didn’t manage to find how they defined the 10%. If I missed it, please point it out to me.
I copy-paste bellow a comment of mine on this, from another community:
The closest thing I managed to find was saying that 16.3% of adults worldwide have wealth of 100k to 1m, in 2023 [source: Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, see The global wealth pyramid at p23] but this is not what the article says.
Somebody suggested the World Inequality Database but on this topic, the results come by country and/or stats.
If anyone has a decent link to share on this topic, please do.
The study itself is fine for what it is. It gives some specific numbers in the abstract (where that 10% is listed), and it feels like the article writer took that and ran. If you look closer at it though, it is not meant to be a definitive paper. It is meant to be a here’s how we can look deeper using these methods. I think science journalism often leaves out that part of science. The, “we have an idea, we need to publish it to get other people to see and help refine it” part is not glamorous, and often inconclusive, but also very important.
I’m afraid you are right. I fell into a rabbit hole yesterday trying to find were the claim of this article came from. I looked into the study itself, and didn’t manage to find how they defined the 10%. If I missed it, please point it out to me.
I copy-paste bellow a comment of mine on this, from another community:
The closest thing I managed to find was saying that 16.3% of adults worldwide have wealth of 100k to 1m, in 2023 [source: Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, see The global wealth pyramid at p23] but this is not what the article says.
Somebody suggested the World Inequality Database but on this topic, the results come by country and/or stats.
If anyone has a decent link to share on this topic, please do.
The study itself is fine for what it is. It gives some specific numbers in the abstract (where that 10% is listed), and it feels like the article writer took that and ran. If you look closer at it though, it is not meant to be a definitive paper. It is meant to be a here’s how we can look deeper using these methods. I think science journalism often leaves out that part of science. The, “we have an idea, we need to publish it to get other people to see and help refine it” part is not glamorous, and often inconclusive, but also very important.