4 ms·

This $30k number is frequently cited and seems to always lead back to http://www.globalrichlist.com http://www.globalrichlist.com It's ~$30k after tax (net inc

by avar 9y ago

This $30k number is frequently cited and seems to always lead back to http://www.globalrichlist.com http://www.globalrichlist.com It's ~$30k after tax (net income). So the actual salary number is going to be higher. It's also misleading because most rich people are rich because of wealth, not income. You need ~$770k in assets to be in the global 1%.

gaius 9y ago
But that is misleading too! In the UK there are millions (probably) of people who bought their houses before the recent property boom, who theoretically have an asset worth at least that much on paper. But since all other property in the country is similarly inflated, the wealth is not real in any meaningful sense. It’s just a number.
- avar 9y ago
  It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living. It also matters in a real sense. Who do you think is better off in absolute terms? Someone who owns a paid-off 200m^2 apartment in London, or someone with the same size apartment in whatever dirt-poor country you could name? The person with the apartment in London could sell it and move to a cheaper country (or even a small town in the UK) and be relatively wealthy, but the reverse isn't true. You're not poor in any meaningful sense compared to the rest of humanity just because you're struggling to pay off your monthly rent on your penthouse in Times Square.
  - gaius 9y ago
    It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living. Of course it is, because ummm you live somewhere. That should be obvious but perhaps it isn't. A person with skill X, a teacher say, can be in "the 1%" (global) in the UK quite easily, but the same person with the same skill doing the same work, would be worse off in another country, so what other than the local economy is the variable? And someone in the global 1% in the UK is not especially wealthy because they need to spend it all straight away...
    - avar 9y ago
      I agree that if you're moving the goalpost to just take-home salary being in the global 1% is less meaningful. Someone with no assets and a $20k salary in NYC is dirt-poor, but if you've got that salary in say Morocco you're relatively rich. But in your earlier comment you mentioned property ownership in some of the most expensive markets in the world, which is entirely different. That implies that you own hundreds of $K of an easily-sold asset, and you're only "poor" to the extent that you're unwilling to move. As I noted the same could be said about someone with a penthouse in NYC. If they own a big part of a $10 million dollar house and struggle to make mortgage payments they're poor by this narrow definition, but of course that's an absurd way of looking at things. They can simply cash out and move somewhere else, unlike someone who's actually poor. Being rich and having expensive tastes doesn't make you poor, it just makes you selective. Still, to address this specific example of yours. Even someone who's struggling to get by in an area that's in the 1% of income worldwide is in a much better situation than someone who's struggling proportionally as much (when adjusted for purchasing power) in a much poorer country. They're going to benefit from better public services, their kids will go to better schools and have better opportunities etc. I think once you account for all of that the picture isn't going to look significantly different than if you'd just have looked at salary with no regard for local purchasing power.

by avar 9y ago

gaius 9y ago

But that is misleading too! In the UK there are millions (probably) of people who bought their houses before the recent property boom, who theoretically have an asset worth at least that much on paper. But since all other property in the country is similarly inflated, the wealth is not real in any meaningful sense. It’s just a number.

avar 9y ago
It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living. It also matters in a real sense. Who do you think is better off in absolute terms? Someone who owns a paid-off 200m^2 apartment in London, or someone with the same size apartment in whatever dirt-poor country you could name? The person with the apartment in London could sell it and move to a cheaper country (or even a small town in the UK) and be relatively wealthy, but the reverse isn't true. You're not poor in any meaningful sense compared to the rest of humanity just because you're struggling to pay off your monthly rent on your penthouse in Times Square.
- gaius 9y ago
  It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living. Of course it is, because ummm you live somewhere. That should be obvious but perhaps it isn't. A person with skill X, a teacher say, can be in "the 1%" (global) in the UK quite easily, but the same person with the same skill doing the same work, would be worse off in another country, so what other than the local economy is the variable? And someone in the global 1% in the UK is not especially wealthy because they need to spend it all straight away...
  - avar 9y ago
    I agree that if you're moving the goalpost to just take-home salary being in the global 1% is less meaningful. Someone with no assets and a $20k salary in NYC is dirt-poor, but if you've got that salary in say Morocco you're relatively rich. But in your earlier comment you mentioned property ownership in some of the most expensive markets in the world, which is entirely different. That implies that you own hundreds of $K of an easily-sold asset, and you're only "poor" to the extent that you're unwilling to move. As I noted the same could be said about someone with a penthouse in NYC. If they own a big part of a $10 million dollar house and struggle to make mortgage payments they're poor by this narrow definition, but of course that's an absurd way of looking at things. They can simply cash out and move somewhere else, unlike someone who's actually poor. Being rich and having expensive tastes doesn't make you poor, it just makes you selective. Still, to address this specific example of yours. Even someone who's struggling to get by in an area that's in the 1% of income worldwide is in a much better situation than someone who's struggling proportionally as much (when adjusted for purchasing power) in a much poorer country. They're going to benefit from better public services, their kids will go to better schools and have better opportunities etc. I think once you account for all of that the picture isn't going to look significantly different than if you'd just have looked at salary with no regard for local purchasing power.