4 ms·
I think the Guardian article meant that they had subtracted debt from assets, but they stated it in a confusing way. The original report states: Once debts h
by breischl 11y ago
I think the Guardian article meant that they had subtracted debt from assets, but they stated it in a confusing way. The original report states:
Once debts have been subtracted, a person needs only USD 3,210 to be among the wealthiest
half of world citizens in mid-2015. However, USD 68,800 is required to be a member of the
top 10% of global wealth holders, and USD 759,900 to belong to the top 1%.
Which is more clearly stated and uses the same numbers as the Guardian article.
See page 11 from:
https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=F2425415-DCA7-80B8-EAD989AF9341D47E https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi...
- mikeash 11y agoYes, I believe you're correct. Holy crap is that a terrible way to put it. I wouldn't call "excluding debt" confusing, but just outright wrong. Unless this is one of those dialect things that means something different to the Brits?
- gjm11 11y agoBrit here. I wouldn't read "... but excludes debt" as meaning "... but subtracts debt from people's wealth when doing statistics", no. I'd guess I'm about as surprised to see it being used that way as an otherwise-similar non-Brit.
- gozo 11y agoMore of an accounting/finance thing, similar to how net price is price excluding tax, net wealth is wealth (assets) excluding debt (loans/liabilities).
- mikeash 11y agoI'm not sure if that helps, because here in the US "price" is by default listed before taxes! I would read "net price is price excluding tax" as "net price is price, ignoring taxes," and thus "net wealth is wealth, ignoring debt."