3 ms·
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 havin
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.