The Perfect Math Tutor for All

Who Gained, Who Paid: The Arithmetic of Globalization

—

5–7 minutes

to read

The Grocery Bill Question

Globalization made the world richer on average. Yet many families in France and Canada feel poorer every year. Both statements are true, and the arithmetic explains why.

Look at the grocery bill. Canada’s Food Price Report 2026 expects a typical family of four to spend about $17,570 on food this year, roughly $340 a week. Food prices are 27% higher than five years ago, and beef has risen fastest. Many families keep the bill down the only way they can: by buying less meat, or switching from beef to chicken. When we hear that the global economy has grown for decades, a teacher’s question follows: grown for whom?

An average can rise while a large group falls behind. That is not an opinion. It is how averages work.

The Elephant Curve

The clearest picture of globalization’s winners and losers is a single graph. In a 2013 World Bank paper, economists Christoph Lakner and Branko Milanovic lined up the world’s population from poorest to richest. They then measured how much each group’s real income grew between 1988 and 2008, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the financial crisis.

The curve looks like an elephant, which gave it its name. Two groups gained the most: the new middle classes of Asia, especially China and India, and the world’s richest 1%. The group near the bottom of the trunk gained the least. In 1988, that group was largely the working and middle classes of rich countries.

Economists still debate the details. Some argue the trough reflects Japan and Eastern Europe more than Western workers. Lakner and Milanovic replied that the basic ranking holds under any version of the calculation: strong growth for Asia’s middle class and the global elite, weak growth for the middle class of rich countries.

That is the arithmetic in one sentence. The world’s average went up. The share going to families like many of ours did not.

France: High Taxes, Record Poverty

France shows what the trough feels like. In 2024, French taxes equalled 43.5% of GDP, the second-highest ratio in the OECD after Denmark. Canada’s ratio was 34.9%.

At the same time, France’s poverty rate reached 15.4% in 2023, the highest since INSEE’s series began in 1996. That represents 9.8 million people in metropolitan France. Child poverty rose to 21.9%.

A note on method, since numbers depend on definitions. INSEE counts as poor anyone living below 60% of the median standard of living. At a 50% threshold, the rate falls to 8.4%. At 40%, it is 4.1%. Most French people in difficulty are not in extreme poverty. They are working families whose income no longer keeps pace with their costs.

Here is the paradox. A country can collect more in taxes than almost any other and still see poverty rise. Where the money goes, and who pays it, matters as much as how much is raised.

The Consent Question

The French were asked twice about Europe, and their answers tell a story. On September 20, 1992, they approved the Maastricht Treaty with 51.04% of the vote. It was the narrowest of margins for a treaty that led to the euro.

On May 29, 2005, they were asked about the European Constitution. With turnout near 70%, 54.67% voted no. It was a clear answer.

Much of that constitution’s content returned in the Lisbon Treaty, which Parliament ratified in 2008 without a new referendum. Supporters note that Lisbon was a different, amending treaty, and that the parliamentary route had been announced during the 2007 presidential campaign. Critics answer that a popular “no” was overturned by an indirect vote.

Readers can weigh both arguments. The arithmetic is simple: the closer and more contested the vote, the greater the need to bring the public along.

Canada: The Arithmetic of Pace

Canada’s version of the story is about speed. In 2023, the population grew by about 1.2 million people, almost entirely through immigration. Housing, clinics and schools cannot be built at that rate. When demand outruns supply, prices rise, and those with the least room in their budgets feel it first.

The policy has since changed course. Between July 2025 and July 2026, Canada’s population grew by only 0.5%, the slowest pace since the Second World War, after federal immigration targets were reduced. The lesson is not that immigration is wrong. It is that the rate of change matters as much as the direction.

The grocery bill tells a similar story. Beef prices are at record highs mainly because there are fewer cattle. After years of drought and ranchers leaving the industry, Canada’s herd fell in January 2026 to 10.9 million head, its lowest since 1988. In March 2026, slaughter cattle in Alberta sold for a record $311 per hundredweight, up from $194 two years earlier.

There is also a structural factor. Two multinationals, Cargill and JBS, process most of Canada’s beef; Senator Paula Simons put their share of slaughter at 84%. The National Farmers Union counts 119 federally inspected beef plants in 1988, compared with about 20 today. Concentration does not prove anyone is fixing prices. It does mean that when supply tightens, consumers and ranchers have very few alternatives.

The Fair Objection

Defenders of globalization have real arguments, and an honest essay should state them. Open trade lowered the price of clothing, electronics and many everyday goods. It opened foreign markets to French wine, Canadian wheat and Alberta beef. It lifted hundreds of millions of people in Asia out of poverty, which the elephant curve itself shows.

They also point out that France sets its own tax rates and social spending. Brussels does not decide that 43.5% of GDP should go to taxes. Nor did trade agreements set Canada’s immigration targets; Ottawa did.

These points are valid. They shift the question from “Is trade good?” to a sharper one: were the gains shared fairly, and were citizens asked?

Conclusion: Choices Made in the Open

Globalization was not a secret. It was a series of decisions, made by elected governments and argued for in public. Its gains were real, but they were not shared evenly. The working and middle classes of countries like France and Canada received the smallest share and carried much of the cost.

That is the arithmetic. A rising average can hide a falling group. A narrow vote can carry a lasting decision. A fast change can overwhelm the systems meant to absorb it.

The remedy begins with seeing the numbers clearly. Citizens who understand who gained and who paid are better placed to ask the right questions of those who govern them. That is not anger. It is accountability.

Sources

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *