The fact is that the poorâ€™s wealth is not measured very well (by Credit Suisse from where Oxfam got its base data) and if you owe money â€“ for instance you have just bought a house, you have some personal debt and have a good job and are paying your mortgage â€“ your net worth is small or negative although you might be doing great. You can be poor but on track to accumulate wealth in later life. In fact most people go through a cycle of being poor when young, they accumulate wealth in homes and pensions and then they shed it again in old age. Mixing this data on a global basis is meaningless.
The numbers, which Oxfam clearly does not understand, are dominated at the top end by the price of stocks and shares (equities), which are volatile and cyclical like the prices of most financial assets. You can search Oxfamâ€™s report in vain for any reference to these underlying forces which drive their spurious conclusions.
This picture from Oxfamâ€™s report shows relative wealth of the Top 80 on the Forbes list compared to the bottom 50%.
Not surprisingly perhaps the global equities graph precisely tracks Oxfamâ€™s graph showing the wealth of the worldâ€™s 80 richest people whose wealth is typically dominated by equities holdings in companies that they have created themselves.
Going back to Oxfamâ€™s chart it would be nice if a poverty â€œcharityâ€ would explain why the bottom half has got poorer recently (even if they are richer than they were before the earlier part of this century according to the chart). Is it due to appreciation of the Dollar against poorer countriesâ€™ currencies? Is it due to poorer people taking on more debt? Does it mean some particular groups have gone backwards? Which ones? Does this research accurately measure poor peopleâ€™s wealth?
It is one thing Oxfam not understanding what drives extreme wealth but it is inexcusable that Oxfam cannot explain poverty. Oxfam seems to be uninterested. Meanwhile does anyone really believe that Bill Gates and his fellow top 80 are the problem?