<p>Here is the last chart of the 2021 <a href="https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">global wealth report of Credit Suise</a> from which Oxfam got their data.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/M1jal.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/M1jal.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>From this, it is clear to see that there is not so much a trend for the top 1% (although the level of 45% is still high). The estimate of 2021 is around 45% which is way below the forecast of 54%.</p>
<p>The figure that you show is highly misleading.</p>
<p>To be fair, Oxfam also gives a longer history in their figure 1:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/VMJV7.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/VMJV7.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>From this figure they extrapolate a trend using only the last 4 years. Basically the last upward portion of the curve. If they would have taken a longer time series to forecast, their prediction would have been much lower.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-21T05:05:54.507Z
That's cool thank you. Now I suspect they purposely zoomed between 40 and 60%, and never updated post 2014 to feed conspiracy sentiment and pathos among readers.
v.oddou
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-20T15:12:18.860Z
2021-10-20T15:12:18.860Z
tdm
<p>In January 2015 oxfam allegedly published this graph:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/1CCoq.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1CCoq.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Q:</strong> I'd like to see how that projection held up, by getting the updated data with a comparable methodology.</p>
<p><em>Here is the original document <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/Wealth_Having_it_all_and_wanting_more.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/Wealth_Having_it_all_and_wanting_more.pdf</a></em></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-19T11:12:13.623Z
can you please share link to the report published by Oxfam? Otherwise it is impossible to know what methodology they used just from the picture, most inequality datasets do not even have data on global *wealth* inequality, such as world inequality dataset as large number of countries do not even have data on wealth, in most countries wealth is untaxed, and there are no good ways of accurately measuring wealth it in many poor countries, so at best even 2010-2013 data must have been some estimates
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-20T02:11:16.950Z
@1muflon1 sure, I edited. I'd just expected it to be googled, you do "top 1% wealth" in google image, and you'll see that all graphs returned by the search stops in 2014. Like if public interest had moved on since then.
v.oddou
<data-request><inequality>
An updated version of oxfam top 1% wealth share evolution to 2021
v.oddou
# An updated version of oxfam top 1% wealth share evolution to 2021

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-10-19)

In January 2015 oxfam allegedly published this graph:
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/1CCoq.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/1CCoq.png)

**Q:** I'd like to see how that projection held up, by getting the updated data with a comparable methodology.

*Here is the original document <https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/Wealth_Having_it_all_and_wanting_more.pdf>*

**Tags:** data-request, inequality

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: can you please share link to the report published by Oxfam? Otherwise it is impossible to know what methodology they used just from the picture, most inequality datasets do not even have data on global *wealth* inequality, such as world inequality dataset as large number of countries do not even have data on wealth, in most countries wealth is untaxed, and there are no good ways of accurately measuring wealth it in many poor countries, so at best even 2010-2013 data must have been some estimates  
> **username_0**: @username_1 sure, I edited. I'd just expected it to be googled, you do "top 1% wealth" in google image, and you'll see that all graphs returned by the search stops in 2014. Like if public interest had moved on since then.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-10-20. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Here is the last chart of the 2021 [global wealth report of Credit Suise](https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html) from which Oxfam got their data.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/M1jal.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/M1jal.png)

From this, it is clear to see that there is not so much a trend for the top 1% (although the level of 45% is still high). The estimate of 2021 is around 45% which is way below the forecast of 54%.

The figure that you show is highly misleading.

To be fair, Oxfam also gives a longer history in their figure 1:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/VMJV7.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/VMJV7.png)

From this figure they extrapolate a trend using only the last 4 years. Basically the last upward portion of the curve. If they would have taken a longer time series to forecast, their prediction would have been much lower.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: That's cool thank you. Now I suspect they purposely zoomed between 40 and 60%, and never updated post 2014 to feed conspiracy sentiment and pathos among readers.  

---

