I'm not sure that's actually all that relevant. Political power and social class are much more determined by the wealth distribution within a society than they are by the worldwide wealth distribution.

It is and it isn't. Relative wealth within society has consequences regardless of absolute wealth. But globally power is absolutely shaped by wealth distribution as well, as wealth distribution is influenced by power relations too.

Political power and social class don't feed hungry people.

Overeating now kills more people than hunger, it just flipped somewhat recently.

Yet both can be at alarmingly high rates at the same time, it's not like one cancels the other out

This story is literally about global wealth.

And you talked about income, not wealth. The problem is that your comment is simply not relevant.

If you paid attention then you would notice that the article isn't about income. You can have top 0.3% worldwide income and still have massive student loans to pay off.

Someone who is using all their income to pay off student loans is "giving away".

Someone in a capital city can be living paycheck to paycheck, spending all of their money due to high rent. Meaning they're "giving away", except not to people poorer than them. They're giving away to people richer than them, so the last part is somewhat correct, but it's not funny so why are you laughing?

People with median US income probably gave away more than the people above them because they are losing their purchasing power for decades. What they gave away was immediately scooped up by the very rich, with very little going to people below them.