4 ms·

Top 1% Global Income - $32,500/year Top 1% Global Wealth - $770,000 assets via https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-p

Top 1% Global Income - $32,500/year Top 1% Global Wealth - $770,000 assets via https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

bhouston 9y ago
Just to be specific, those numbers you give are in EURs, not USD.
olivermarks 9y ago
2,200 billionaires if this is to be believed http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/ http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/
neonhomer 9y ago
The wealth seems like a much more accurate of the top 1%, especially with the amount of personal debt people have.
aquark 9y ago
This feels like a large disconnect? Assuming these two sets of people are not the same -- there are a lot of people in the west earning > $32K a year and having less than $770K in assets. So they are in the top set but not the bottom. Since the cardinality of the sets is the same, where are all the people that have more than $770K in assets but earn less than $32K a year. Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce more income than that, or are the stats excluding investment income? People with that much equity in their home wouldn't realize the income ... but how many people in the west even live in $700K+ homes and yet have less than $32K in income a year? Maybe some seniors, but surely not a very large group.
- forrestthewoods 9y ago
  I agree. It does feel weird. I suspect radically differing methodology may be at play. Then again if you take a teacher who made $40k/year for 30 years but has a decent pension and owns a normal home maybe it's possible?
- Tycho 9y ago
  I would guess a very large number of pensioners who own their homes.
- 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
  > Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce more income than that, or are the stats excluding investment income? Perhaps unrealized capital gains are counted as wealth but not income? I've heard that it's possible through some legal maneuvering to "spend" capital gains without technically realizing it.
hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
Thanks for that data. Interesting to me is that there is that seemingly large gap between the income and wealth numbers. That is, the 32,500 number comes down to just about anyone with a full-time job in the US that pays over minimum wage, but the 770k in assets seems to be a much, much higher level.

bhouston 9y ago

Just to be specific, those numbers you give are in EURs, not USD.

olivermarks 9y ago

2,200 billionaires if this is to be believed http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/ http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/

neonhomer 9y ago

The wealth seems like a much more accurate of the top 1%, especially with the amount of personal debt people have.

aquark 9y ago

This feels like a large disconnect? Assuming these two sets of people are not the same -- there are a lot of people in the west earning > $32K a year and having less than $770K in assets. So they are in the top set but not the bottom. Since the cardinality of the sets is the same, where are all the people that have more than $770K in assets but earn less than $32K a year. Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce more income than that, or are the stats excluding investment income? People with that much equity in their home wouldn't realize the income ... but how many people in the west even live in $700K+ homes and yet have less than $32K in income a year? Maybe some seniors, but surely not a very large group.

forrestthewoods 9y ago
I agree. It does feel weird. I suspect radically differing methodology may be at play. Then again if you take a teacher who made $40k/year for 30 years but has a decent pension and owns a normal home maybe it's possible?
Tycho 9y ago
I would guess a very large number of pensioners who own their homes.
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
> Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce more income than that, or are the stats excluding investment income? Perhaps unrealized capital gains are counted as wealth but not income? I've heard that it's possible through some legal maneuvering to "spend" capital gains without technically realizing it.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago

Thanks for that data. Interesting to me is that there is that seemingly large gap between the income and wealth numbers. That is, the 32,500 number comes down to just about anyone with a full-time job in the US that pays over minimum wage, but the 770k in assets seems to be a much, much higher level.