[refurb]

Oxfam's report [1] on 62 people accumulating more wealth than half the world's population combined

Measuring wealth is a pretty poor way to measure inequality.

If you're a recently graduated brain surgeon with $400K in student debt, you have less wealth than a homeless person with a $100 bill in their pocket.

[smallnamespace]

Identifying one edge case doesn't really prove an argument. Net wealth is not a perfect metric, but is probably the best one we have.

You can be sure 95%+ of brain surgeons have paid off all their student debts and have a lot more wealth than a homeless guy, considering their median salary is $395k per year.

[matt4077]

Those wealth statistics really are dodgy. Another edge case: you're earning so little that you don't save, but spend it all on food/housing/etc. Now your country's economy takes off and you suddenly earn 20% more. You're still spending it all, enjoying much better and healthier food. To those statistics, nothing changed.

Net income is a much better metric than wealth.

[refurb]

One edge case? Look at the debt levels in the US! There is a huge chunk of the population that has a negative net worth, mostly due to mortgage debt.

Is it fair to say all those people are poorer than people in India who have a few dollars to their name?

[smallnamespace]

Well, show me a perfect metric that doesn't have similar edge cases?

For example, income has its own issues -- a retiree can have little income but a big retirement fund to draw down.

In an ideal world, you'd probably measure something like current net wealth + discounted expected future earnings, and maybe use PPP instead of GDP, except now you're trying to measure two things accurately instead of one, and making guesses about the future too.