The same country, two economic realities: On one side, the struggle to make ends meet; on the other, rapidly growing wealth

The main issue in the Turkish economy today is not just the level of inflation, interest rates, or growth; it is how the produced and growing wealth is formed, and to whom and to what extent it reaches. Two different lives are being lived within the same economy, drifting further apart: on one side, millions trying to make it to the end of the month by calculating their rent, bills, kitchen expenses, and their children's education costs; on the other, hundreds of billions of liras in funds, extraordinary price movements, and vast wealth created in a short time. On one side, the struggle for livelihood; on the other, wealth accumulation.

The problem is certainly not getting rich; it is a natural outcome of the economy for those who produce, invest, take risks, and create employment to earn. The real issue is through which channels wealth grows, how effectively it is audited, and how much of the created prosperity is reflected in society. For this reason, TÜRK-İŞ's September 2026 data is not just a “livelihood survey”; it is a powerful mirror showing the point reached in income distribution, sharing, and economic justice in Turkey.

NEW COSTS OF LIVING HUMANELY: The Hunger Threshold Rose to 37,801 TL, and the Poverty Threshold to 123,130 TL

According to TÜRK-İŞ's September 2026 research, the monthly food expenditure required for a family of four to eat healthily, in a balanced and sufficient manner—that is, the hunger threshold—has risen to 37,801 TL. When housing, transportation, education, health, clothing, and other mandatory needs are also taken into account, the poverty threshold has reached 123,130 TL, and the monthly cost of living for a single worker has reached 48,885 TL. Kitchen inflation was 35.14 percent in the last twelve months and 39.78 percent on an annual average.

There is an important distinction here: 123,130 TL is not a salary; it is the total monthly income required for a household of four to meet its basic needs. However, when we place these amounts side-by-side with current incomes, the picture becomes much more striking.

The 2026 net minimum wage is 28,075 TL. In other words, the minimum wage is 9,725 TL, approximately 26 percent below the hunger threshold, which represents only the food expenses of a family of four. The lowest pension, which was 23,552 TL as of July 2026, is 14,249 TL, approximately 38 percent behind the hunger threshold.

In other words, today, a single minimum wage does not even cover the kitchen expenses of a family of four; the lowest pension remains far below this amount. For a household of four to reach the 123,130 TL poverty threshold, approximately 4.4 minimum wages or 5.2 lowest pensions must enter the same home.

WHAT CHANGED IN A YEAR? Wages Increased, the Livelihood Gap Grew Even More

This picture did not emerge in a few months. The struggle for livelihood already existed; however, in the last year, the cost of living continued to rise faster than incomes.

According to TÜRK-İŞ data, in September 2025, the hunger threshold for a family of four was 27,971 TL, the poverty threshold was 91,109 TL, and the monthly cost of living for a single worker was 36,305 TL. One year later, these amounts rose to 37,801 TL, 123,130 TL, and 48,885 TL, respectively.

There is a critical distinction here: Falling inflation does not mean falling prices. Indeed, while annual kitchen inflation fell from 41.05 percent to 35.14 percent, the monthly food expenditure of a family of four increased by 9,830 TL, the poverty threshold by 32,021 TL, and the cost of living for a single worker by 12,580 TL. Prices did not fall; only their rate of increase slowed down. Therefore, the answer to the question “inflation is falling, but why isn't the struggle for livelihood decreasing?” lies here.

Moreover, during the same period, while the net minimum wage increased from 22,105 TL to 28,075 TL, that is, by approximately 27 percent, the increase in hunger and poverty thresholds was approximately 35 percent. Thus, the income of the minimum wage earner moved further away not only from the poverty threshold but also from the hunger threshold.

In September 2025, one minimum wage could cover 79 percent of the hunger threshold and 24.3 percent of the poverty threshold. In September 2026, these rates fell to 74.3 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. More strikingly, the monthly gap between the hunger threshold and the minimum wage increased from 5,866 TL to 9,725 TL; the livelihood gap grew by approximately 66 percent in just one year.

In summary, in one year, while the minimum wage increased by 27 percent, the hunger and poverty thresholds rose by approximately 35 percent. When incomes cannot keep up with the cost of living, the result does not change: more debt, giving up more necessities, and an increasingly shrinking life.

WE ARE WORKING, BUT CAN WE MAKE ENDS MEET?

The picture revealed by the numbers is actually very clear: In Turkey, working is increasingly insufficient for a wider segment of the population to make ends meet. While the minimum wage cannot even cover the basic food needs of a family of four, millions of retirees are trying to sustain their lives with an income well below the hunger threshold. If full-time work or years of labor are not enough to meet basic needs, the issue is no longer just the level of wages, but the share labor receives from economic growth and the created prosperity.

Moreover, while the minimum wage should normally be an exceptional level that determines the base wage of working life, it has turned into the de facto wage standard for millions of employees in Turkey. This situation makes the compression in wage distribution and the erosion in labor income more visible.

The fundamental purpose of a social state is not just to keep its citizens at the lowest threshold of poverty, but to guarantee a standard of living worthy of human dignity. A system where the worker can receive the reward for their labor and the retiree can sustain their life without constant anxiety about making ends meet is the basic requirement of this understanding.

Because the gap between income and the cost of living does not disappear; it is attempted to be closed by other means. With credit cards, consumer loans, family support, a second job, or by giving up necessities… Less is consumed, health expenditures are postponed, and social life and children's needs are cut back.

Therefore, the resulting gap is growing not only in budgets but in people's lives. The fundamental truth shown by TÜRK-İŞ data is also here: The issue is no longer just the cost of living; it is income distribution, social justice, and which segments of society the growing economic value reaches.

It is precisely at this point that one needs to look at the other side of the economy.

ON ONE SIDE, STRUGGLE; ON THE OTHER, HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS

On the other side of the economy, there are completely different magnitudes. Within the scope of the recent fund crisis, 131 funds belonging to 7 portfolio management companies were taken into the liquidation process by the Capital Markets Board (SPK). The size of these funds, which concern hundreds of thousands of investors, is evaluated in the band of approximately 800–900 billion TL with current valuations.

An important distinction must be made here: The entire 800–900 billion TL is not “lost money.” This figure represents the size of the financial assets under liquidation; the final loss of investors will only become clear when the liquidation process is completed.

However, to understand the scale of the figure, placing it side-by-side with the reality of daily life gives a striking idea. 800 billion TL corresponds to the one-month livelihood amount of approximately 6.5 million households of four based on the 123,130 TL poverty threshold; 900 billion TL corresponds to approximately 7.3 million households. On an annual scale, this magnitude is equivalent to the total income of approximately 540 thousand–610 thousand families of four at the poverty threshold level for one year.

Let's look from another scale: Based on the Osmangazi Bridge, whose construction cost was announced as approximately 1.48 billion dollars, the financial size of 800–900 billion TL corresponds roughly to the cost of 11–12 Osmangazi Bridges at the exchange rate at the end of September.

Of course, what is being said here is not “if the money in the funds had been taken and distributed to families.” But without seeing what kind of economic power hundreds of billions of liras represent, it is impossible to understand the scale difference between the struggle for livelihood on one side and wealth accumulation on the other.

And this comparison leads us to a more fundamental question: Is not how wealth is formed as important as its size?

EASY MONEY OR PROSPERITY THROUGH PRODUCTION?

The issue brought to the agenda by the fund crisis is not just how much money will be lost; it is how wealth is formed and whether the created value has a counterpart in the real economy.

If a company increases its production, invests, creates employment, and raises its sales and profitability, there is an economic counterpart behind the increase in company value. One of the fundamental functions of capital markets is to finance this value creation by directing savings to production and investment.

However, if asset prices decouple from economic fundamentals, financial transactions feed each other to rapidly push prices up, and wealth increase stems more from price movements than production, then other questions must be asked: Is what emerges really a new economic value, or is it an enrichment on paper created by rising asset prices?

The most critical question arises at the audit point: While financial movements of this scale were taking place, how early could the regulatory and supervisory mechanisms intervene? Because the duty of financial supervision is not just to intervene after a problem arises; it is to see risks in time, protect market integrity, and take precautions before they become systemic.

In short, the knowledge and reflex of the supervisory institution cannot lag behind the market.

HOW DID THE FUND CRISIS TURN INTO A TRILLION-LIRA WAVE? When Trust is Shaken, the Bill Grows

As we emphasized in our previous article, the fund crisis is not just an issue of hundreds of billions of liras of financial magnitude or hundreds of thousands of investors; it is a much broader problem that tests the functioning of the market, the effectiveness of supervision, and the trust placed in the financial system. Indeed, the liquidity squeeze and selling pressure that started in the funds progressed along with a loss of trust that spread to the market as a whole in a short time.

While the total market value of all BIST companies fell by approximately 20 percent in September, approximately 4.5 trillion TL of market value evaporated. The loss in dollar terms was approximately 96 billion dollars. In BIST 100 companies, the monthly market value loss was calculated as approximately 16 percent, approximately 27 billion dollars in dollar terms.

The movement on the index front was also quite sharp. On September 16, when the fund crisis became evident, the BIST 100 fell by 5.54 percent in one day, dropping from 13,892 points to 13,123 points. When the September 11 closing of 14,467.25 points before the crisis is compared with the September 30 closing of 11,947.18 points, the decline reaches approximately 17.4 percent.

However, two points must be distinguished here. The index loss in the BIST 100 and the erosion in the total market value of companies are not the same thing, nor would it be correct to attribute the entire 4.5 trillion TL loss directly to the fund crisis. Financial markets are affected by numerous economic, political, and global variables simultaneously.

On the other hand, the fact that the liquidity need, selling pressure, and loss of trust that emerged in the funds spread to the market as a whole shows an important truth: Trust also has an economic value in the financial system. A problem that directly concerns approximately 455 thousand investors can affect a much wider investor base and market value through channels of trust and liquidity.

Because when trust is shaken in financial markets, the damage does not always stay where it started. Selling pressure disrupts liquidity, disrupted liquidity triggers new sales, and increasing uncertainty further weakens trust. Thus, the initial problem can turn into a much larger wave that spreads to the market as a whole.

For this reason, one of the fundamental truths that the fund crisis reminds us of is this: Trust in the financial system is not just psychological, but an economic capital; when lost, its cost can be measured in trillions.

THE SAME COUNTRY, TWO ECONOMIC REALITIES

At the point reached, two different economic realities stand side-by-side within the same country. On one side, there is a 37,801 TL hunger threshold, a 123,130 TL poverty threshold; a 28,075 TL minimum wage, and a 23,552 TL lowest pension. Millions who struggle to meet their basic needs even though they work, who have to allocate their income to rent, bills, kitchen, and debt payments before they even receive it…

On the other side, there are hundreds of billions of liras in funds, financial wealth that can grow in a short time, and market values measured in trillions. Of course, it is not correct to see these two pictures as the direct cause of each other. However, it is necessary to question how the income and wealth produced by the same economy are formed, how they are distributed, and to which segments of society and to what extent they reach.

Because the issue is no longer just inflation; it is how income is shared, through which channels wealth is formed, how effectively the financial system is audited, and how much of the growing economic value is transformed into social prosperity.

The fact that financial wealth grows rapidly in an economy while the basic living costs of employees and retirees drift further away inevitably leads us to the following question:

While the economy is growing, is prosperity also growing together; or is the distance between the growing value and the prosperity reflected in people's lives widening?

CONCLUSION: The Issue is Not Just Growth, But Distribution

It is not enough to read the economy only with ratios, indices, and magnitudes of billions of liras. We cannot understand the real economic picture without translating the numbers into people's lives.

The 37,801 TL hunger threshold is not just a statistic; it is the cost of the dining table. The 123,130 TL poverty threshold is the price of housing, education, health, transportation, and living humanely. In contrast, the 800–900 billion TL fund size shows how large values move in the financial system; the 4.5 trillion TL market value loss shows how quickly these values can evaporate when trust is shaken.

For this reason, the real question is not just “how many billions of liras were earned or lost?” The more fundamental question is this: While wealth can grow so rapidly in a country and hundreds of billions of liras can move within the financial system, why do employees and retirees still remain below the hunger threshold?

If the worker's labor is not enough to meet their basic needs, the retiree's table is shrinking, and millions of people are struggling to make ends meet, the issue is not just inflation or the level of wages; it is also the issue of how and among whom the created value is shared. Because growth alone is not enough to create prosperity. What is important is that labor receives the share it deserves from the value created through production, investment, and employment, and that growth is reflected in the standard of living of broad segments of society.

Ultimately, the growth of wealth is not prosperity on its own. The true wealth of a country is measured not before how much wealth it produces, but by how fairly it can share the value it creates and to what extent it can transform this value into social prosperity.