Trust in Government (OECD countries): Number 34
When looking internationally, one of the inescapable conclusions is that national governments that work effectively to lessen inequality, promote the well-being of their citizens, and deliver on those promises enjoy a higher level of trust from their citizens. Here the US ranks poorly.
Citizens in Switzerland have the highest percentage of trust in government (83.3 percent), followed by Finland (77.5), Sweden (68.8), Norway (63.6), and Denmark (63.5). The United ranks 34th with just 31.0 percent of citizens trusting the government.
Source: “Trust in Government,” OECD (2023),
https://data.oecd.org/gga/trust-in-government.htm#indicator-chart. Luxembourg, ranking second, was left off this table.
When looking internationally, one of the inescapable conclusions is that national governments that work effectively to lessen inequality, promote the well-being of their citizens, and deliver on those promises enjoy a higher level of trust from their citizens. Here the US ranks poorly.
Citizens in Switzerland have the highest percentage of trust in government (83.3 percent), followed by Finland (77.5), Sweden (68.8), Norway (63.6), and Denmark (63.5). The United ranks 34th with just 31.0 percent of citizens trusting the government.
Source: “Trust in Government,” OECD (2023),
https://data.oecd.org/gga/trust-in-government.htm#indicator-chart. Luxembourg, ranking second, was left off this table.
Lowest Child Poverty (OECD countries): Number 31
During the pandemic years, the percentage of child poverty declined in the United States and was greatly assisted by the Child Tax Credit. From July through December 2021, the Internal Revenue Service paid Child Tax Credits worth $250 per child (age 6 to 17) and up to $300 per child under the age of 6; a total of 61 million children in 36 million households were assisted. Thus, 3 million children were kept out of poverty in July 2021, climbing up to 3.7 million in December. Thanks to the Child Tax Credit, the poverty rate in 2021 fell to its lowest level ever recorded by the US Census Bureau. But there was a looming expiration date on this successful program.
The expanded Child Tax Credit was scheduled to be continued in the Biden administration’s Build Back Better legislation. The bill passed in the House of Representatives in November 2021, but was blocked in the Senate by the refusal of Democrat Joe Manchin III to agree. Thus, the Child Tax Credit was not renewed. The results were immediate. Child poverty has increased dramatically from 12.1 percent in December 2021 to 17.0 percent in January 2022. Researchers from the Columbia University Center for Poverty and Social Policy note that 3.7 million more children were in poverty in early 2022 due to the ending of the monthly tax credits, and Latino and Black children were hit the hardest. Then came the official numbers from the US Census Bureau: child poverty spiked in 2022, averaging 12.4 percent, up from 5.2 percent in the previous year. “By far this is the largest annual increase in US history for both children and the overall population in terms of poverty, going back to 1967,” said Zachary Parolin at the Columbia University Center for Poverty and Social Policy. Altogether, five million children were affected by the end of the tax credits.
The OECD calculates that the percentage of children living in poverty for Finland is 2.4 percent. Ranking second is Denmark (4.8 percent), third is Iceland (5.4 percent), fourth is Slovenia (5.6 percent), and fifth is the Czech Republic (7.1 percent). The United States ranks 31st with18.8 percent of children living in poverty.
Sources: Zachary Parolin, Sophie Collyer, and Megan A. Curran, “Absence of Monthly Child Tax Credit Leads to 3.7 Million More Children in Poverty in January 2022.” Poverty and Social Policy Brief Vol 6., no. 2. Center on Poverty and Social Policy, Columbia University (February 17, 2022), www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/publication/monthly-poverty-january-2022; Kyle Swenson and Amy Goldstein, “US Poverty Spiked in 2022, Reversing Gains, Census Bureau Data Shows,” Washington Post, September 12, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/12/us-poverty-rate-census-uninsured-2022/; “Proportion of Children Living in Poverty in the OECD Countries, 2020, Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/264424/child-poverty-in-oecd-countries/; OECD database.
During the pandemic years, the percentage of child poverty declined in the United States and was greatly assisted by the Child Tax Credit. From July through December 2021, the Internal Revenue Service paid Child Tax Credits worth $250 per child (age 6 to 17) and up to $300 per child under the age of 6; a total of 61 million children in 36 million households were assisted. Thus, 3 million children were kept out of poverty in July 2021, climbing up to 3.7 million in December. Thanks to the Child Tax Credit, the poverty rate in 2021 fell to its lowest level ever recorded by the US Census Bureau. But there was a looming expiration date on this successful program.
The expanded Child Tax Credit was scheduled to be continued in the Biden administration’s Build Back Better legislation. The bill passed in the House of Representatives in November 2021, but was blocked in the Senate by the refusal of Democrat Joe Manchin III to agree. Thus, the Child Tax Credit was not renewed. The results were immediate. Child poverty has increased dramatically from 12.1 percent in December 2021 to 17.0 percent in January 2022. Researchers from the Columbia University Center for Poverty and Social Policy note that 3.7 million more children were in poverty in early 2022 due to the ending of the monthly tax credits, and Latino and Black children were hit the hardest. Then came the official numbers from the US Census Bureau: child poverty spiked in 2022, averaging 12.4 percent, up from 5.2 percent in the previous year. “By far this is the largest annual increase in US history for both children and the overall population in terms of poverty, going back to 1967,” said Zachary Parolin at the Columbia University Center for Poverty and Social Policy. Altogether, five million children were affected by the end of the tax credits.
The OECD calculates that the percentage of children living in poverty for Finland is 2.4 percent. Ranking second is Denmark (4.8 percent), third is Iceland (5.4 percent), fourth is Slovenia (5.6 percent), and fifth is the Czech Republic (7.1 percent). The United States ranks 31st with18.8 percent of children living in poverty.
Sources: Zachary Parolin, Sophie Collyer, and Megan A. Curran, “Absence of Monthly Child Tax Credit Leads to 3.7 Million More Children in Poverty in January 2022.” Poverty and Social Policy Brief Vol 6., no. 2. Center on Poverty and Social Policy, Columbia University (February 17, 2022), www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/publication/monthly-poverty-january-2022; Kyle Swenson and Amy Goldstein, “US Poverty Spiked in 2022, Reversing Gains, Census Bureau Data Shows,” Washington Post, September 12, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/12/us-poverty-rate-census-uninsured-2022/; “Proportion of Children Living in Poverty in the OECD Countries, 2020, Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/264424/child-poverty-in-oecd-countries/; OECD database.
Prevalence of Overall Poverty: We’re Number 28
The level and depth of poverty in the United States should trouble us all. Recent studies, written by sociologists Matthew Desmond and Mark Robert Rank, economist Anne Case and Angus Deaton, and economist Joseph Stiglitz, among many others, explore the depths of American poverty and its consequences. Deaton once observed that “There are millions of Americans whose suffering, through material poverty or poor health, is as bad or worse than that of the people of Africa or in Asia.” Furthermore, nearly 18 million Americans, 6 percent of the population, live in what is categorized as “deep poverty.” These individuals survive at less than one-half the official poverty rate. For single adults, that half-poverty line figure is $6,380; for a family of four, it is $13,100.
When comparing the poverty rates among the OECD countries, we find that the United States is the definite outlier. It has the highest percentage of overall poverty (15.1 percent) and the highest rate of child poverty (20.9 percent). Using 2019 data, the average overall poverty rate among OECD countries is 10.7 percent; the average child (ages 0 to 17 years old) poverty rate among the 25 OECD countries is 11.7 percent.
Of the 28 countries surveyed, the United States is the outlier, ranked as 28th.
Sources: Matthew Desmond, Poverty, By America; Mark Robert Rank, The Poverty Paradox: Understanding Economic Hardship Amid American Prosperity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023); Anne Case and Angus Deaton, Death of Despair and the Future of Capitalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2021); Sitglitz, The Price of Inequality. “America’s Poor Are Worse Off Than Elsewhere,” Confronting Poverty, n.d., https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/ (accessed March 22, 2023). Statistica, https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-oecd-countries.
The level and depth of poverty in the United States should trouble us all. Recent studies, written by sociologists Matthew Desmond and Mark Robert Rank, economist Anne Case and Angus Deaton, and economist Joseph Stiglitz, among many others, explore the depths of American poverty and its consequences. Deaton once observed that “There are millions of Americans whose suffering, through material poverty or poor health, is as bad or worse than that of the people of Africa or in Asia.” Furthermore, nearly 18 million Americans, 6 percent of the population, live in what is categorized as “deep poverty.” These individuals survive at less than one-half the official poverty rate. For single adults, that half-poverty line figure is $6,380; for a family of four, it is $13,100.
When comparing the poverty rates among the OECD countries, we find that the United States is the definite outlier. It has the highest percentage of overall poverty (15.1 percent) and the highest rate of child poverty (20.9 percent). Using 2019 data, the average overall poverty rate among OECD countries is 10.7 percent; the average child (ages 0 to 17 years old) poverty rate among the 25 OECD countries is 11.7 percent.
Of the 28 countries surveyed, the United States is the outlier, ranked as 28th.
Sources: Matthew Desmond, Poverty, By America; Mark Robert Rank, The Poverty Paradox: Understanding Economic Hardship Amid American Prosperity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023); Anne Case and Angus Deaton, Death of Despair and the Future of Capitalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2021); Sitglitz, The Price of Inequality. “America’s Poor Are Worse Off Than Elsewhere,” Confronting Poverty, n.d., https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/ (accessed March 22, 2023). Statistica, https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-oecd-countries.
Social Mobility (OECD and selected other countries): Number 27
How about Social Mobility, that widespread assumption that American sons and daughters, if they worked hard and played by the rules, would have a better life than their parents? This may be true in some countries, but increasingly not in the United States.
But in groundbreaking economic analysis, titled “The Fading American Dream,” economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues have shown that the prospects for children to earn more than their parents “have faded over the past half-century in the United States. The fraction of children earning more than their parents fell from approximately 90 percent for children born in 1940 to around 50 percent for children entering the labor market today. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class.” What would help reverse this downward trend? “A more even distribution of economic growth, rather than more growth, would allow more children to fulfill their dreams.”
Why is the United States only 27th on this list? The OECD used several pillars to calculate its rankings. The US ranked high on Work Opportunities and Technology Access pillars but had the lowest scores in the region on the Fair Wages pillar; further, it ranked low on the Social Protection pillar and the Health pillar, where it performs “quite poorly.” Indeed, in America today, a child’s future ability to earn is closely tied with the socio-economic standing of its parents. “The game is half over,” wrote philosopher Matthew Stewart, “once you’ve selected your parents.”
The Scandinavian countries—Denmark (85.2), Norway (83.6), Finland (83.6), Sweden (83.5), along with Iceland (82.7), the Netherlands (82.4), and Switzerland (82.1) In addition, Germany ranked 11th (78.8), France ranked 12th (76.7), Canada and Japan ranked 14th (76.1), and South Korea ranked 25th (71.4)—all having social mobility scores higher than the United States (70.4). The Russian Federation ranked 39th (64.7), China ranked 45th (61.5), and Mexico ranked 58th (52.6).
Source: Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang, “The Fading American Dream” Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940,” Science 356 (6336) (April 24, 2017), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aal4617#editor-abstract. Matthew Stewart, “The 9.9 Percent is the New American Aristocracy,” The Atlantic, June 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/.
How about Social Mobility, that widespread assumption that American sons and daughters, if they worked hard and played by the rules, would have a better life than their parents? This may be true in some countries, but increasingly not in the United States.
But in groundbreaking economic analysis, titled “The Fading American Dream,” economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues have shown that the prospects for children to earn more than their parents “have faded over the past half-century in the United States. The fraction of children earning more than their parents fell from approximately 90 percent for children born in 1940 to around 50 percent for children entering the labor market today. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class.” What would help reverse this downward trend? “A more even distribution of economic growth, rather than more growth, would allow more children to fulfill their dreams.”
Why is the United States only 27th on this list? The OECD used several pillars to calculate its rankings. The US ranked high on Work Opportunities and Technology Access pillars but had the lowest scores in the region on the Fair Wages pillar; further, it ranked low on the Social Protection pillar and the Health pillar, where it performs “quite poorly.” Indeed, in America today, a child’s future ability to earn is closely tied with the socio-economic standing of its parents. “The game is half over,” wrote philosopher Matthew Stewart, “once you’ve selected your parents.”
The Scandinavian countries—Denmark (85.2), Norway (83.6), Finland (83.6), Sweden (83.5), along with Iceland (82.7), the Netherlands (82.4), and Switzerland (82.1) In addition, Germany ranked 11th (78.8), France ranked 12th (76.7), Canada and Japan ranked 14th (76.1), and South Korea ranked 25th (71.4)—all having social mobility scores higher than the United States (70.4). The Russian Federation ranked 39th (64.7), China ranked 45th (61.5), and Mexico ranked 58th (52.6).
Source: Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang, “The Fading American Dream” Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940,” Science 356 (6336) (April 24, 2017), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aal4617#editor-abstract. Matthew Stewart, “The 9.9 Percent is the New American Aristocracy,” The Atlantic, June 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/.
Gender Equity in Wages (OECD and selected other countries): Number 38
The Institute for Women’s Policy Research through its Status of Women in the States analysis shows that the persistent pay inequality is “far-reaching: if women in the United States received equal pay with comparable men, poverty for working women would be reduced by half and the U.S. economy would have added $482 billion (equivalent to 2.8 percent of 2014 GDP) to its economy.” Further, if working women were paid at the same comparable rate as men, the poverty rate among all working women would fall from 8.2 percent to 4.0 percent.
In looking at the wage gender gap in 2022, the OECD found that the United States ranked 38th among OECD and selected other countries. The country with the least wage gap is Belgium; for men earning $100.00, women earn $98.83. The average for twenty-seven countries in the European Union is this: men earn $100.00, women earn $89.37. The United States figures are far lower: men earn $100.00 and women earn $83.14.
Sources: “The Economic Impact of Equal Pay by State,” Status of Women in the States, http://statusofwomendata.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SWS-Equal-Pay-and-Poverty_final.pdf; “Gender Wage Gap,” OECD, https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm. The OECD defines the gender gap as “The difference between median earnings of men and women relative to median earnings of men.”
The Institute for Women’s Policy Research through its Status of Women in the States analysis shows that the persistent pay inequality is “far-reaching: if women in the United States received equal pay with comparable men, poverty for working women would be reduced by half and the U.S. economy would have added $482 billion (equivalent to 2.8 percent of 2014 GDP) to its economy.” Further, if working women were paid at the same comparable rate as men, the poverty rate among all working women would fall from 8.2 percent to 4.0 percent.
In looking at the wage gender gap in 2022, the OECD found that the United States ranked 38th among OECD and selected other countries. The country with the least wage gap is Belgium; for men earning $100.00, women earn $98.83. The average for twenty-seven countries in the European Union is this: men earn $100.00, women earn $89.37. The United States figures are far lower: men earn $100.00 and women earn $83.14.
Sources: “The Economic Impact of Equal Pay by State,” Status of Women in the States, http://statusofwomendata.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SWS-Equal-Pay-and-Poverty_final.pdf; “Gender Wage Gap,” OECD, https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm. The OECD defines the gender gap as “The difference between median earnings of men and women relative to median earnings of men.”
National Minimum Wage: We’re Number 17
In 2009, the US federal minimum wage was set at $7.25 an hour; despite repeated efforts to raise the rate, today it remains at $7.25. This is the longest period of time, since first enacted in 1938, that the rate has not increased. Adjusted for inflation, this minimum wage is 40 percent lower than the minimum wage ($1.60) set in 1970 ($11.95 in 2023 dollars). With the greater cost of food, housing, and other necessities following the pandemic, the $7.25 minimum has shrunk even further.
In 2013, Republicans in the House voted unanimously to defeat a bill that would have raised the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour; in 2014, a Republican filibuster in the Senate blocked similar wage increase. In 2019, Democrats introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, with the goal of reaching $15 an hour by 2023, and eliminating the subminimum wage for tipped employees, which now is $2.13 an hour. Under this proposal, beginning in 2025, the minimum wage would be indexed to median wages, so that every year that the median wage grew, so too would the minimum wage. If enacted, the Raise the Wage Act would have affected 26.6 percent of the American wage-earning workforce, a total of 39.7 million workers. The proposal went nowhere, but was reintroduced two years later by Sanders and Scott.
While Congress has stalled, several cities and states have adjusted their minimum wages to keep up with inflation. In 2012, an advocacy campaign, Fight for $15, was launched among fast-food workers. Since then, several states and cities have increased, or soon plan to increase, their minimum wage to $15 per hour.
Four countries, Luxembourg, Australia, France, and Germany, have minimum wages above $12 per hour.
Sources: Raise the Minimum Wage website,
https://raisetheminimumwage.com/federal-campaigns/. “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $15 by 2024 Would Lift Pay for Nearly 40 Million Workers,” Economic Policy Institute, February 5, 2019, https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2024-would-lift-pay-for-nearly-40-million-workers/; “Ranking of OECD Countries by National Minimum Wage in 2021,” Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/322716/ranking-of-oecd-countries-by-national-minimum-wage/.
In 2009, the US federal minimum wage was set at $7.25 an hour; despite repeated efforts to raise the rate, today it remains at $7.25. This is the longest period of time, since first enacted in 1938, that the rate has not increased. Adjusted for inflation, this minimum wage is 40 percent lower than the minimum wage ($1.60) set in 1970 ($11.95 in 2023 dollars). With the greater cost of food, housing, and other necessities following the pandemic, the $7.25 minimum has shrunk even further.
In 2013, Republicans in the House voted unanimously to defeat a bill that would have raised the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour; in 2014, a Republican filibuster in the Senate blocked similar wage increase. In 2019, Democrats introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, with the goal of reaching $15 an hour by 2023, and eliminating the subminimum wage for tipped employees, which now is $2.13 an hour. Under this proposal, beginning in 2025, the minimum wage would be indexed to median wages, so that every year that the median wage grew, so too would the minimum wage. If enacted, the Raise the Wage Act would have affected 26.6 percent of the American wage-earning workforce, a total of 39.7 million workers. The proposal went nowhere, but was reintroduced two years later by Sanders and Scott.
While Congress has stalled, several cities and states have adjusted their minimum wages to keep up with inflation. In 2012, an advocacy campaign, Fight for $15, was launched among fast-food workers. Since then, several states and cities have increased, or soon plan to increase, their minimum wage to $15 per hour.
Four countries, Luxembourg, Australia, France, and Germany, have minimum wages above $12 per hour.
Sources: Raise the Minimum Wage website,
https://raisetheminimumwage.com/federal-campaigns/. “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $15 by 2024 Would Lift Pay for Nearly 40 Million Workers,” Economic Policy Institute, February 5, 2019, https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2024-would-lift-pay-for-nearly-40-million-workers/; “Ranking of OECD Countries by National Minimum Wage in 2021,” Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/322716/ranking-of-oecd-countries-by-national-minimum-wage/.
Income Equality: We’re Number 32
The US Census Bureau began tracking income inequality in 1967; in 2018, the level of inequality reached its highest peak. Recovery from the crippling 2008 economic downturn was slow but steady, but the economic separation between the rich and the poor became even more pronounced. The impact of the pandemic years only added to that separation.
All countries have income inequalities, but in looking at the OECD countries, we find that the United States ranks 32nd, just ahead of Bulgaria, Turkey, Mexico, and Costa Rica. Those countries with the least income inequality are the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Belgium, Norway, and Denmark.
Source: “Income Inequality,” OECD Data, https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm.
The US Census Bureau began tracking income inequality in 1967; in 2018, the level of inequality reached its highest peak. Recovery from the crippling 2008 economic downturn was slow but steady, but the economic separation between the rich and the poor became even more pronounced. The impact of the pandemic years only added to that separation.
All countries have income inequalities, but in looking at the OECD countries, we find that the United States ranks 32nd, just ahead of Bulgaria, Turkey, Mexico, and Costa Rica. Those countries with the least income inequality are the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Belgium, Norway, and Denmark.
Source: “Income Inequality,” OECD Data, https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm.
Most Unequal Distribution of Wealth (worldwide): Number 3
One way of measuring inequality is through the Gini Coefficient, a statistical measurement that calculates how spread-out from one another are the wealth concentrations. Perfect equality, where 10 percent of the population have 10 percent of the wealth, is represented by the value 0.00; while the value 1.00 represents total inequality of wealth (the highest cohort has all the wealth, the rest of society has none). When comparing the United States with countries throughout the world, using the Gini Coefficient to measure wealth, it comes in as the third most unequal, just behind Brazil and the Russian Federation.
Source: James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas, and Anthony Shorrocks, “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, 2022, Credit Suisse, https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html.
One way of measuring inequality is through the Gini Coefficient, a statistical measurement that calculates how spread-out from one another are the wealth concentrations. Perfect equality, where 10 percent of the population have 10 percent of the wealth, is represented by the value 0.00; while the value 1.00 represents total inequality of wealth (the highest cohort has all the wealth, the rest of society has none). When comparing the United States with countries throughout the world, using the Gini Coefficient to measure wealth, it comes in as the third most unequal, just behind Brazil and the Russian Federation.
Source: James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas, and Anthony Shorrocks, “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, 2022, Credit Suisse, https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html.
Wealth Concentrated in Top 10 Percent of Households (OECD Countries): Number 1
Among OECD countries, the United States stands far above the rest in the unequal distribution of wealth. While the Credit Suisse research shows that the top 10 percent of American families hold 69.2 percent, the OECD, using other date, estimates that nearly 80 percent of all wealth in the US is controlled by the top 10 percent of households.
Source: “Social Mobility,” OECD, https://www.oecd.org/stories/social-mobility/ from OECD Wealth Database.
Among OECD countries, the United States stands far above the rest in the unequal distribution of wealth. While the Credit Suisse research shows that the top 10 percent of American families hold 69.2 percent, the OECD, using other date, estimates that nearly 80 percent of all wealth in the US is controlled by the top 10 percent of households.
Source: “Social Mobility,” OECD, https://www.oecd.org/stories/social-mobility/ from OECD Wealth Database.
Median Individual Wealth: We’re Number 18
The ranking of median individual wealth shows a different picture. In 2021, Australia ranked first with $273,900 in individual wealth; Belgium ($267,890) was second; New Zealand ($231,260) was third; Hong Kong SAR ($202,380) was fourth; and Denmark ($171,170) was fifth. The United States median individual wealth was $93,270, ranking 18th.
Source: James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas, and Anthony Shorrocks, “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, 2022, Credit Suisse, https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html
The ranking of median individual wealth shows a different picture. In 2021, Australia ranked first with $273,900 in individual wealth; Belgium ($267,890) was second; New Zealand ($231,260) was third; Hong Kong SAR ($202,380) was fourth; and Denmark ($171,170) was fifth. The United States median individual wealth was $93,270, ranking 18th.
Source: James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas, and Anthony Shorrocks, “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, 2022, Credit Suisse, https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html
Average Individual Wealth: We’re Number 2
The United States is indeed a very wealthy country and, among OECD countries, ranks second in average individual wealth just behind Switzerland. In 2021, Switzerland had an average individual wealth of $696,604; the United States had $579,051. Australia ($550,110) was third, New Zealand ($472,153) was fourth, and Denmark ($426,494) was fifth.
Source: James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas, and Anthony Shorrocks, “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, 2022, Credit Suisse, https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html
The United States is indeed a very wealthy country and, among OECD countries, ranks second in average individual wealth just behind Switzerland. In 2021, Switzerland had an average individual wealth of $696,604; the United States had $579,051. Australia ($550,110) was third, New Zealand ($472,153) was fourth, and Denmark ($426,494) was fifth.
Source: James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas, and Anthony Shorrocks, “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, 2022, Credit Suisse, https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html
Public Sector Corruption: We’re Number 24
Transparency International annually publishes its list of public sector corruption. It measures 180 countries using a variety of data and formulates an index (100 being best; 0 being the worst), as perceived by experts and business executives.
Transparency International states that “corruption generally comprises illegal activities, which are deliberately hidden and only come to light through scandals, investigations or prosecutions.” Among the data captured by this Index are evidence of bribery, diversion of public funds, prevalence of public officials using public office for private gain without facing consequences, government’s ability to contain corruption, effective criminal prosecution of corrupt officials, and legal protection for whistleblowers, journalists and investigators when they report corruption. Not included in these rankings are citizens’ perceptions of corruption, tax fraud, private sector corruption, and other measures.
The United States ranked 24th. The question yet to be answered, what will be the public sector corruption score during a second Trump term as president?
Source: “Corruption Perceptions Index,” Transparency International, https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022.
Transparency International annually publishes its list of public sector corruption. It measures 180 countries using a variety of data and formulates an index (100 being best; 0 being the worst), as perceived by experts and business executives.
Transparency International states that “corruption generally comprises illegal activities, which are deliberately hidden and only come to light through scandals, investigations or prosecutions.” Among the data captured by this Index are evidence of bribery, diversion of public funds, prevalence of public officials using public office for private gain without facing consequences, government’s ability to contain corruption, effective criminal prosecution of corrupt officials, and legal protection for whistleblowers, journalists and investigators when they report corruption. Not included in these rankings are citizens’ perceptions of corruption, tax fraud, private sector corruption, and other measures.
The United States ranked 24th. The question yet to be answered, what will be the public sector corruption score during a second Trump term as president?
Source: “Corruption Perceptions Index,” Transparency International, https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022.
Democratic Institutions (Economist Intelligence Study): We’re Number 25
Another analysis and ranking of democratic institutions comes from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a research group affiliated with the Economist media group. The EIU used five broad measures of democratic institutions: (1) electoral process and pluralism; (2) functioning of government; (3) political participation; (4) political culture; and (5) civil liberties. It categorizes countries according to four fields: “Full Democracies” (23 countries); “Flawed Democracies” (52 countries); “Hybrid Regimes” (35 countries); and “Authoritarian Regimes” (57 countries).
The United States is ranked 25th in the world and is labelled a “flawed democracy.” The top-ranked democracies, labelled “full democracies,” were Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, and Australia.
Source: “Democracy Index 2020: In Sickness and In Health, Economist Intelligence Unit, https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/democracy-index-2020.pdf?mkt_tok=NzUzLVJJUS00MzgAAAGLz8pJxdvi-Ch0FU7h6gFETu8H5QZtpqwss-0_e6BkQHUswSruQE0C1atHVEw-_4ATGr6i0uZjfqQfTz6yd-D2HUzrELRpQcYQesiqGjnj_7hplA
Another analysis and ranking of democratic institutions comes from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a research group affiliated with the Economist media group. The EIU used five broad measures of democratic institutions: (1) electoral process and pluralism; (2) functioning of government; (3) political participation; (4) political culture; and (5) civil liberties. It categorizes countries according to four fields: “Full Democracies” (23 countries); “Flawed Democracies” (52 countries); “Hybrid Regimes” (35 countries); and “Authoritarian Regimes” (57 countries).
The United States is ranked 25th in the world and is labelled a “flawed democracy.” The top-ranked democracies, labelled “full democracies,” were Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, and Australia.
Source: “Democracy Index 2020: In Sickness and In Health, Economist Intelligence Unit, https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/democracy-index-2020.pdf?mkt_tok=NzUzLVJJUS00MzgAAAGLz8pJxdvi-Ch0FU7h6gFETu8H5QZtpqwss-0_e6BkQHUswSruQE0C1atHVEw-_4ATGr6i0uZjfqQfTz6yd-D2HUzrELRpQcYQesiqGjnj_7hplA
Democratic Institutions (Würzburg Study): We’re Number 37
Since 2016, researchers under the direction of Professor Hans-Joachim Lauth at the University of Würzburg in Germany have developed the Democracy Matrix project. That research measures the quality of democracy in over 175 countries, and its most recent analysis was from 2019.
The Democracy Matrix considers fifteen fields, with countries grouped in five categories, according to their democratic characteristics: “Working Democracy” (such as all of the Europe and North America; 37 countries in all), “Deficient Democracy” (most of South America; 46 countries), “Hybrid Regimes” (such as Mexico, India, and Nigeria; 41 countries), “Moderate Autocracies” (Russia, Egypt, and Cuba; 34 countries), and “Hard Autocracies” (China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran; 21 countries). They find that, when measuring population rather than simply the number of states, that almost half of the states worldwide have democratic regimes, but only a little more than one fourth of the world’s population lives in democracies.”
Based on these fifteen measurements, the United States remains a working democracy, but is outpaced by 36 other countries. The year before, the Democracy Matrix rankings had the United States at 38th place in the world and labelled as a “Deficient Democracy.” All this is before the 2020 presidential election, the Big Lie, the “Stop the Steal” efforts, the blatant attempts of Donald Trump and his allies to discredit the election results, and the unprecedented storming of the Capitol attempting to deny Biden his rightful victory.
Then came the 2024 victory of Donald Trump. Critics feared the worst: without any guardrails, with compliant majorities in both the House and the Senate, and with an agenda suffused with revenge and retribution, how could democracy survive? Would Trump follow through on his most blatant campaign promises: jailing opponents, purging the federal bureaucracy of critics, pardoning convicted January 6th instigators, ridding the military of so-called “woke” leaders, bypassing the legislative branch, flaunting the courts, and replacing democratic decision making with autocratic fiat and his billionaire friends. Trump supporters, on the other hand, dismiss the most egregious insults and claims, as mere campaign hyperbole, and welcoming what they consider much-needed changes in how the federal government operates. The next time international rankings are published, will the United States still be classified as a “flawed democracy,” or will it be labelled more as an authoritarian state.
Sources: Democracy Matrix, University of Würzburg, https://www.democracymatrix.com/fileadmin/Mediapool/PDFs/Report/DeMaX_Report_2019_Growing_Hybridity.pdf.
Since 2016, researchers under the direction of Professor Hans-Joachim Lauth at the University of Würzburg in Germany have developed the Democracy Matrix project. That research measures the quality of democracy in over 175 countries, and its most recent analysis was from 2019.
The Democracy Matrix considers fifteen fields, with countries grouped in five categories, according to their democratic characteristics: “Working Democracy” (such as all of the Europe and North America; 37 countries in all), “Deficient Democracy” (most of South America; 46 countries), “Hybrid Regimes” (such as Mexico, India, and Nigeria; 41 countries), “Moderate Autocracies” (Russia, Egypt, and Cuba; 34 countries), and “Hard Autocracies” (China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran; 21 countries). They find that, when measuring population rather than simply the number of states, that almost half of the states worldwide have democratic regimes, but only a little more than one fourth of the world’s population lives in democracies.”
Based on these fifteen measurements, the United States remains a working democracy, but is outpaced by 36 other countries. The year before, the Democracy Matrix rankings had the United States at 38th place in the world and labelled as a “Deficient Democracy.” All this is before the 2020 presidential election, the Big Lie, the “Stop the Steal” efforts, the blatant attempts of Donald Trump and his allies to discredit the election results, and the unprecedented storming of the Capitol attempting to deny Biden his rightful victory.
Then came the 2024 victory of Donald Trump. Critics feared the worst: without any guardrails, with compliant majorities in both the House and the Senate, and with an agenda suffused with revenge and retribution, how could democracy survive? Would Trump follow through on his most blatant campaign promises: jailing opponents, purging the federal bureaucracy of critics, pardoning convicted January 6th instigators, ridding the military of so-called “woke” leaders, bypassing the legislative branch, flaunting the courts, and replacing democratic decision making with autocratic fiat and his billionaire friends. Trump supporters, on the other hand, dismiss the most egregious insults and claims, as mere campaign hyperbole, and welcoming what they consider much-needed changes in how the federal government operates. The next time international rankings are published, will the United States still be classified as a “flawed democracy,” or will it be labelled more as an authoritarian state.
Sources: Democracy Matrix, University of Würzburg, https://www.democracymatrix.com/fileadmin/Mediapool/PDFs/Report/DeMaX_Report_2019_Growing_Hybridity.pdf.
Gender Equity and Political Empowerment: We’re Number 37
In terms of political power and gender equity, the World Economic Forum (WEF) noted that the United States had jumped from 53rd place during the latter years of the first Trump administration to 37th place, thanks in part to the Biden administration’s executive appointments. The WEF calculations for gender equity and political empowerment considered three criteria: the percent of women in the national legislature; percent of women in ministerial positions; and years with a female head of state.
Gender equity also means a different focus on lawmaking and public policy. As Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Democrat-New York) lamented a decade ago, “Basic rights that our mothers and grandmothers successfully fought for are still on the table. I can guarantee you that if Congress was 51 percent women, we wouldn’t be wasting a day on whether women should have affordable contraception. We would be talking about the economy.
Sources: “Global Gender Gap Report, 2021,” World Economic Forum, March 2021, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf; Richard V. Reeves, “Congress Needs Gender Parity Quotas,” Brookings Institution, April 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/congress-needs-gender-parity-quotas/. Gillibrand quoted in Charlotte Alter, “Kirsten Gillibrand on Why She Hates the Phrase ‘Having It All,’” Time, October 1, 2014, https://time.com/3453839/kirsten-gillibrand-have-it-all/.
In terms of political power and gender equity, the World Economic Forum (WEF) noted that the United States had jumped from 53rd place during the latter years of the first Trump administration to 37th place, thanks in part to the Biden administration’s executive appointments. The WEF calculations for gender equity and political empowerment considered three criteria: the percent of women in the national legislature; percent of women in ministerial positions; and years with a female head of state.
Gender equity also means a different focus on lawmaking and public policy. As Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Democrat-New York) lamented a decade ago, “Basic rights that our mothers and grandmothers successfully fought for are still on the table. I can guarantee you that if Congress was 51 percent women, we wouldn’t be wasting a day on whether women should have affordable contraception. We would be talking about the economy.
Sources: “Global Gender Gap Report, 2021,” World Economic Forum, March 2021, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf; Richard V. Reeves, “Congress Needs Gender Parity Quotas,” Brookings Institution, April 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/congress-needs-gender-parity-quotas/. Gillibrand quoted in Charlotte Alter, “Kirsten Gillibrand on Why She Hates the Phrase ‘Having It All,’” Time, October 1, 2014, https://time.com/3453839/kirsten-gillibrand-have-it-all/.
Participation of Women in National Legislatures: We’re Number 77
In the US Senate and the House of Representatives, there has been a slow, but steady increase in the number of women serving. In the 119th Congress (2025-2027), there are 125 women (29 percent) in the House of Representatives and 26 women (26 percent) in the Senate. (In addition, there are 4 non-voting women delegates in the House). In 2022, there are 562 women serving in state senates (28.5 percent) and 1,738 women in state lower chambers (32.1 percent). About two-thirds of all women serving are Democrats.
Throughout the world at the beginning of 2025, the Inter-Parliamentary Union found that 26.1 percent of legislators were women. Thus, the American representation could only be characterized as “near average,” ranking 77th in the world. In 2022, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Norway) had the highest average of women lawmakers, at 41.4 percent. The Americas (North and South) were next with 21.8 percent, followed by Europe (minus the Nordic countries) at 19.1 percent; Asian countries were next with 17.4 percent, Sub-Saharan Africa with 17.2 percent, Pacific Islands with 13.4 percent, and Arab states with 9.6 percent.
Sources: Inter-Parliamentary Union, “Monthly Ranking of Women in National Parliaments,” (February 2025, https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking/?date_month=1&date_year=2025); “More Women in Parliament and More Countries with Gender Parity,” Inter-Parliamentary Union, March 3, 2022, https://www.ipu.org/news/press-releases/2022-03/new-ipu-report-more-women-in-parliament-and-more-countries-with-gender-parity
In the US Senate and the House of Representatives, there has been a slow, but steady increase in the number of women serving. In the 119th Congress (2025-2027), there are 125 women (29 percent) in the House of Representatives and 26 women (26 percent) in the Senate. (In addition, there are 4 non-voting women delegates in the House). In 2022, there are 562 women serving in state senates (28.5 percent) and 1,738 women in state lower chambers (32.1 percent). About two-thirds of all women serving are Democrats.
Throughout the world at the beginning of 2025, the Inter-Parliamentary Union found that 26.1 percent of legislators were women. Thus, the American representation could only be characterized as “near average,” ranking 77th in the world. In 2022, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Norway) had the highest average of women lawmakers, at 41.4 percent. The Americas (North and South) were next with 21.8 percent, followed by Europe (minus the Nordic countries) at 19.1 percent; Asian countries were next with 17.4 percent, Sub-Saharan Africa with 17.2 percent, Pacific Islands with 13.4 percent, and Arab states with 9.6 percent.
Sources: Inter-Parliamentary Union, “Monthly Ranking of Women in National Parliaments,” (February 2025, https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking/?date_month=1&date_year=2025); “More Women in Parliament and More Countries with Gender Parity,” Inter-Parliamentary Union, March 3, 2022, https://www.ipu.org/news/press-releases/2022-03/new-ipu-report-more-women-in-parliament-and-more-countries-with-gender-parity
A Woman President? 30 Women Now Head Governments, But Not in the United States
With the June 2024 elections of Claudia Sheinbaum as president of Mexico and Halla Tómasdóttir as prime minister of Iceland, there are now thirty women who are heads of state or heads of government. In the United States, just two women have been the nominees for a major political party. Former First Lady and New York senator Hillary R. Clinton ran in 2016 and Vice President Kamala Harris ran in 2024; both were defeated by Donald Trump. Only two women, Alaska governor Sarah Palin in 2008 and California senator Kamala Harris in 2020 had been nominated by one of the two major parties in the United States to be vice-president. Harris was the only woman to serve as vice-president of the United States.
In the 2024 US presidential campaign, Donald Trump made it a point to demean, insult, and ridicule Harris, making crude sexist remarks, accusing her of sleeping her way to power and lacking the stamina and intelligence to lead the country. He routinely called her a “bad person,” someone who is “evil, sick, crazy.” Trump boasted that he would protect women, “whether the women like it or not.” Trump loyalists and rally-goers lapped it up. J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate, and the newly elected vice-president, disparaged liberal women as “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable in their own lives.”
Source: Michael Gold, “Trump, Vance and Allies Hurl Insults at Women as Race Ends,” New York Times, November 5, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/05/us/politics/trump-nancy-pelosi-liz-cheney-women.html
With the June 2024 elections of Claudia Sheinbaum as president of Mexico and Halla Tómasdóttir as prime minister of Iceland, there are now thirty women who are heads of state or heads of government. In the United States, just two women have been the nominees for a major political party. Former First Lady and New York senator Hillary R. Clinton ran in 2016 and Vice President Kamala Harris ran in 2024; both were defeated by Donald Trump. Only two women, Alaska governor Sarah Palin in 2008 and California senator Kamala Harris in 2020 had been nominated by one of the two major parties in the United States to be vice-president. Harris was the only woman to serve as vice-president of the United States.
In the 2024 US presidential campaign, Donald Trump made it a point to demean, insult, and ridicule Harris, making crude sexist remarks, accusing her of sleeping her way to power and lacking the stamina and intelligence to lead the country. He routinely called her a “bad person,” someone who is “evil, sick, crazy.” Trump boasted that he would protect women, “whether the women like it or not.” Trump loyalists and rally-goers lapped it up. J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate, and the newly elected vice-president, disparaged liberal women as “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable in their own lives.”
Source: Michael Gold, “Trump, Vance and Allies Hurl Insults at Women as Race Ends,” New York Times, November 5, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/05/us/politics/trump-nancy-pelosi-liz-cheney-women.html
Wide Open Campaign Spending: We’re Number 1
The 2020 presidential campaign between incumbent Donald Trump and challenger Joe Biden, along with the races for the House and Senate, proved to be, by far, the costliest in American history up to that point. A total of $14.4 billion was spent in 2020, more than double the previous high of $6.5 billion spent in the presidential year of 2016. Then came the 2024 presidential election, which easily topped the 2020 campaign. The Harris campaign raised over $1 billion, while the Trump campaign raised about $600 million. But the striking feature was the amount of money raised by billionaire sources, mostly Republicans, who gave to Super PACs in support of their favored candidates. Most prominent was Elon Musk who gave at least $260 million and played an outsized role in underwriting a get-out-the-vote effort on Trump’s behalf, offering daily $1 million sweepstakes for voters in battleground states.
Sources: Karl Evers-Hillstrom, “Most Expensive Ever: 2020 Election Cost $14.4 Billion,” Opensecrets.org, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/; Fredreka Schouten, David Wright, and Alex Leeds Matthews, “Musk Spent More Than a Quarter-Billion Dollars to Elect Trump, Including Funding a Mysterious Super PAC, New Filings Show,” CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/politics/elon-musk-trump-campaign-finance-filings/index.html.
It may be surprising to learn that only 1.8 percent of the American adult population gave more than $200 to a federal campaign in 2020. And including the many thousands of state and local campaigns going on during the same election cycle, probably no more than 4 percent of the adult population contributes money to political candidates and causes.
The 2020 presidential campaign between incumbent Donald Trump and challenger Joe Biden, along with the races for the House and Senate, proved to be, by far, the costliest in American history up to that point. A total of $14.4 billion was spent in 2020, more than double the previous high of $6.5 billion spent in the presidential year of 2016. Then came the 2024 presidential election, which easily topped the 2020 campaign. The Harris campaign raised over $1 billion, while the Trump campaign raised about $600 million. But the striking feature was the amount of money raised by billionaire sources, mostly Republicans, who gave to Super PACs in support of their favored candidates. Most prominent was Elon Musk who gave at least $260 million and played an outsized role in underwriting a get-out-the-vote effort on Trump’s behalf, offering daily $1 million sweepstakes for voters in battleground states.
Sources: Karl Evers-Hillstrom, “Most Expensive Ever: 2020 Election Cost $14.4 Billion,” Opensecrets.org, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/; Fredreka Schouten, David Wright, and Alex Leeds Matthews, “Musk Spent More Than a Quarter-Billion Dollars to Elect Trump, Including Funding a Mysterious Super PAC, New Filings Show,” CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/politics/elon-musk-trump-campaign-finance-filings/index.html.
It may be surprising to learn that only 1.8 percent of the American adult population gave more than $200 to a federal campaign in 2020. And including the many thousands of state and local campaigns going on during the same election cycle, probably no more than 4 percent of the adult population contributes money to political candidates and causes.
The Electoral College and Electing a President: We’re the Only Ones
The Electoral College system of voting for the American presidential election is an antiquated system and often confusing, winner-take-all system, putting the spotlight on individual states where race-thin victories could decide the election for the entire country. About 150 million citizens voted in the 2024 presidential election, but they didn’t vote directly for the president. Rather they voted for electors who are pledged to a candidate.
Five times in American history, the most recent being in 2000 and 2016, the losing candidate had more popular votes than the winner. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000, but lost in the Electoral College; in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College tally.
There have been over 700 measures proposed in Congress to get rid of the Electoral College method of choosing a president. But none have succeeded. The antiquated electoral system gives Republicans a better chance of winning the White House than reliance on solely on the popular vote.
When it comes to electing a country’s most important public official, the president, the system employed in the United States is a definite outlier. No other country uses such a mechanism.
Voting as a National Holiday in OECD Countries: We’re Number 28
The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is Election Day in the United States. Most votes are cast that day, but thirty-eight states provide for a form of early voting; some of that voting can start as early as late September, some six weeks before the Election Day.
But Election Day falls on a workday for most Americans. Why not make Election Day a national holiday or move it to a Saturday or Sunday? Thirteen states (as of 2018) give workers the day off on Election Day; and more than twenty states require employers to give their workers time off (usually one or two hours) to cast their votes. Business leaders have stepped in. For example, in advance of the 2020 presidential election, some 600 companies—such as, Coca-Cola, Best Buy, Gap, J. Crew, and JPMorgan Chase—gave employees paid time off to vote on Election Day.
Nearly all the OECD countries have adapted weekend voting; the United States is just one of nine countries (out of the 38 in the OECD) that have national voting day during the week, and two of those countries—Israel and South Korea—have made that day a national holiday.
Sources: MakeTimetoVote.org, https://www.maketimetovote.org; Drew DeSilver, “Weekday Elections Set the US Apart from Many Other Advanced Democracies,” Pew Research Center, November 6, 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/06/weekday-elections-set-the-u-s-apart-from-many-other-advanced-democracies/
The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is Election Day in the United States. Most votes are cast that day, but thirty-eight states provide for a form of early voting; some of that voting can start as early as late September, some six weeks before the Election Day.
But Election Day falls on a workday for most Americans. Why not make Election Day a national holiday or move it to a Saturday or Sunday? Thirteen states (as of 2018) give workers the day off on Election Day; and more than twenty states require employers to give their workers time off (usually one or two hours) to cast their votes. Business leaders have stepped in. For example, in advance of the 2020 presidential election, some 600 companies—such as, Coca-Cola, Best Buy, Gap, J. Crew, and JPMorgan Chase—gave employees paid time off to vote on Election Day.
Nearly all the OECD countries have adapted weekend voting; the United States is just one of nine countries (out of the 38 in the OECD) that have national voting day during the week, and two of those countries—Israel and South Korea—have made that day a national holiday.
Sources: MakeTimetoVote.org, https://www.maketimetovote.org; Drew DeSilver, “Weekday Elections Set the US Apart from Many Other Advanced Democracies,” Pew Research Center, November 6, 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/06/weekday-elections-set-the-u-s-apart-from-many-other-advanced-democracies/