34 ms·

> This is a meaningless statistic It's only meaningless if you cherry-pick your examples and draw your opinions from those examples. For 99 percent of the pop

> This is a meaningless statistic It's only meaningless if you cherry-pick your examples and draw your opinions from those examples. For 99 percent of the population, wealth is a fair reflection of the actual comparative wealth of individuals.

retube 11y ago
It's hardly cherry picking. I don't know exactly the percentage, but let's say 50% of the US population is net in debt. So all these people are poorer than the millions in developing nations without a penny to their name? As above, I would argue no, they are not. Hence this statistic doesn't mean much.
- ksowocki 11y ago
  Your example of a recent MBA graduate is absolutely a cherry picked example. Even if it wasnt cherry picked example, it's still a bad example for your argument because a cohort of MBA graduates will quickly pay off their debt because of their high earning potential. Your entire argument is based upon two faulty assumptions, that people in poorer / developing nations (1) have a lower standard of living than all Americans and (2) have no debts themselves.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  The point of the statistic is not living standards, which you are focusing on. The point is who controls the wealth. A person with a negative net worth is not wealthy. The person who holds the note for their debt, is. A loan is an asset on the loaner's books, and yes, it will be included in the calculation of relative levels of wealth.
cmdkeen 11y ago
Not in the developed West it isn't. I'm a fortunate young professional in that I have a stonking great mortgage and still owe (some, it is the UK) of my student loan. In wealth terms I'm doing OK but not great, certainly not in liquid / disposable wealth terms as well as before my property. In the long run however my decisions will likely lead to me being much wealthier than if I maximised my present wealth at all times. I'd say for many people in the West that income is a greater factor. I know plenty of posh people who have inherited money but who have decent but not spectacularly well paying jobs. The cost of modern middle class living in the UK quickly reduces much difference between what they can afford and what I can.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Some would suggest that as a young professional in the UK, presumably in a tech related field, and who moves in social circles that include "plenty of posh people who have inherited money", then maybe you are a poor yardstick to be measuring things against. What you're basically saying is "people with inherited wealth have a great life, similar to mine, and much like me, they're probably totally blasé about exactly how good they have it".
edanm 11y ago
Is that true, or are you just saying it? E.g. this article argues that the numbers are indeed misleading: http://fusion.net/story/39185/oxfams-misleading-wealth-statistics/ http://fusion.net/story/39185/oxfams-misleading-wealth-stati... I have no idea if it's accurate, but you just saying that his comment is a "cherry picked example" doesn't ring true (since most people in the US are indeed in debt). And anyway, you don't provide any reason to think you're right.
- retube 11y ago
  That fusion link nails it. Exactly my points elsewhere in this thread.

retube 11y ago

It's hardly cherry picking. I don't know exactly the percentage, but let's say 50% of the US population is net in debt. So all these people are poorer than the millions in developing nations without a penny to their name? As above, I would argue no, they are not. Hence this statistic doesn't mean much.

ksowocki 11y ago
Your example of a recent MBA graduate is absolutely a cherry picked example. Even if it wasnt cherry picked example, it's still a bad example for your argument because a cohort of MBA graduates will quickly pay off their debt because of their high earning potential. Your entire argument is based upon two faulty assumptions, that people in poorer / developing nations (1) have a lower standard of living than all Americans and (2) have no debts themselves.
snowwrestler 11y ago
The point of the statistic is not living standards, which you are focusing on. The point is who controls the wealth. A person with a negative net worth is not wealthy. The person who holds the note for their debt, is. A loan is an asset on the loaner's books, and yes, it will be included in the calculation of relative levels of wealth.

cmdkeen 11y ago

Not in the developed West it isn't. I'm a fortunate young professional in that I have a stonking great mortgage and still owe (some, it is the UK) of my student loan. In wealth terms I'm doing OK but not great, certainly not in liquid / disposable wealth terms as well as before my property. In the long run however my decisions will likely lead to me being much wealthier than if I maximised my present wealth at all times. I'd say for many people in the West that income is a greater factor. I know plenty of posh people who have inherited money but who have decent but not spectacularly well paying jobs. The cost of modern middle class living in the UK quickly reduces much difference between what they can afford and what I can.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Some would suggest that as a young professional in the UK, presumably in a tech related field, and who moves in social circles that include "plenty of posh people who have inherited money", then maybe you are a poor yardstick to be measuring things against. What you're basically saying is "people with inherited wealth have a great life, similar to mine, and much like me, they're probably totally blasé about exactly how good they have it".

edanm 11y ago

Is that true, or are you just saying it? E.g. this article argues that the numbers are indeed misleading: http://fusion.net/story/39185/oxfams-misleading-wealth-statistics/ http://fusion.net/story/39185/oxfams-misleading-wealth-stati... I have no idea if it's accurate, but you just saying that his comment is a "cherry picked example" doesn't ring true (since most people in the US are indeed in debt). And anyway, you don't provide any reason to think you're right.

retube 11y ago
That fusion link nails it. Exactly my points elsewhere in this thread.