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.
find the poorest 50% of the earth’s population. determine their collective wealth
look at the wealthiest people on earth, and add them to a list from the top down, one by one. stop when you reach a collective wealth three times that of what you found for the poorest 50% of people. count how many uber wealthy people that was, and calculate what percentage of the population they are
So this subset holds half of all wealth on the planet, according to the OP headline phrasing.
So we’re up to 50% poor people + 150% ultra-wealthy = 200% of humanity’s wealth…
the poorest half of humanity does not have half the wealth
you’re stuck on that interpretation but its not what the words mean
if you sort everyone richest to poorest and then cut the group in half at the midpoint so an equal number if people lie on each side, the poorest half do not have half the wealth
you are misinterpreting the headline phrasing. there isn’t a second way to interpret it.