5 ms·

For context, to be a member of the global top one percent, you must earn $32,000 per year[1]. 1. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/

For context, to be a member of the global top one percent, you must earn $32,000 per year[1]. 1. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

IncRnd 9y ago
Thank you for that information! The $32,400 figure from that article, is from the same group in the original article, Oxfam. Since the original article didn't really point out the income floor for the global 1%, Twain's quote comes to mind: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
mortenjorck 9y ago
Would you suppose that someone making $32,000 per year in the US has a comparable standard of living to someone who makes $32,000 per year in a country where laborers are paid $2 a day? If the answer is no, do you then think a global 1st percentile of wage earnings is a useful metric, especially when the US 1st percentile (according to your link) is an order of magnitude higher?
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  I agree with you that the scales are way out of wonk for exactly those reasons. But is there a better metric for this? It sounds like the calculation of the 1% isn't relative, though of course the gap between 32k and the top number is astonishing. I think you raise a good point, but I'm not sure how we should normalize our ideas of wealth in an equitable way internationally.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  No, but because they are far better off in the US.
- iAMAGuest 9y ago
  I live in a country were just under a 1/4 of the population lives in poverty, on mass most people don't even come close to earning 32K USD a year. The average is around 1/7th of that at approximately 7K USD. So, is it fair to compare someone in the US living of 32K a year and someone earning 32K a year where the laborers are being paid $2 a day, well the answer to that is yes. After all you would be talking about edge case, as there isn't a lot of people living in those circumstances in developing countries, while the mass in the US is living under those circumstances. If you want to talk about the "standard" of living, then the cost of the same standard in developing countries is often the same as developed countries, Petrol, cars, healthcare (though this may differ in some areas), quality food, are comparative in cost, as many of these products are provided from the same or similar sources as where US consumers get their products.
danieltillett 9y ago
There is something strange about this claim. By definition there are 70 million people in the global 1%. I find it hard to believe the median wage of the top 70 million highest incomes in the world is only $32,000.
- ktta 9y ago
  It's the minimum, not the median.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Sorry I meant to say median of the top 140 million.
AndrewDucker 9y ago
That's income. Top 1% of wealth is 720,000 Euros (880,000 dollars).

IncRnd 9y ago

Thank you for that information! The $32,400 figure from that article, is from the same group in the original article, Oxfam. Since the original article didn't really point out the income floor for the global 1%, Twain's quote comes to mind: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

mortenjorck 9y ago

Would you suppose that someone making $32,000 per year in the US has a comparable standard of living to someone who makes $32,000 per year in a country where laborers are paid $2 a day? If the answer is no, do you then think a global 1st percentile of wage earnings is a useful metric, especially when the US 1st percentile (according to your link) is an order of magnitude higher?

natecavanaugh 9y ago
I agree with you that the scales are way out of wonk for exactly those reasons. But is there a better metric for this? It sounds like the calculation of the 1% isn't relative, though of course the gap between 32k and the top number is astonishing. I think you raise a good point, but I'm not sure how we should normalize our ideas of wealth in an equitable way internationally.
dogma1138 9y ago
No, but because they are far better off in the US.
iAMAGuest 9y ago
I live in a country were just under a 1/4 of the population lives in poverty, on mass most people don't even come close to earning 32K USD a year. The average is around 1/7th of that at approximately 7K USD. So, is it fair to compare someone in the US living of 32K a year and someone earning 32K a year where the laborers are being paid $2 a day, well the answer to that is yes. After all you would be talking about edge case, as there isn't a lot of people living in those circumstances in developing countries, while the mass in the US is living under those circumstances. If you want to talk about the "standard" of living, then the cost of the same standard in developing countries is often the same as developed countries, Petrol, cars, healthcare (though this may differ in some areas), quality food, are comparative in cost, as many of these products are provided from the same or similar sources as where US consumers get their products.

danieltillett 9y ago

There is something strange about this claim. By definition there are 70 million people in the global 1%. I find it hard to believe the median wage of the top 70 million highest incomes in the world is only $32,000.

ktta 9y ago
It's the minimum, not the median.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Sorry I meant to say median of the top 140 million.

AndrewDucker 9y ago

That's income. Top 1% of wealth is 720,000 Euros (880,000 dollars).