I'm not convinced. The article makes a valid point that including debt into the statistics makes it harder to make comparisons between segments. But then it use

I'm not convinced. The article makes a valid point that including debt into the statistics makes it harder to make comparisons between segments. But then it uses that point to claim that we should not attempt to make any comparisons at all because everyone is a unique snowflake etc etc: > The second lesson of this story is broader: that when you’re talking about poor people, aggregating wealth is a silly and ultimately pointless exercise. Some poor people have modest savings; some poor people are deeply in debt; some poor people have nothing at all. That seems like just muddying the waters to avoid some uncomfortable conclusions. By the way, buried in the center of the article, the author actually admids that the essence of the findings - highlighting the extreme wealth inequality - is correct: > Now $1.7 trillion is undoubtedly a lot of money: there is an astonishing amount of wealth inequality in the world, and it’s shocking that just 67 people are worth that much.