3 ms·

This is an interesting read, and a good review of Giridharadas. But I'm frustrated that it fails to grapple with the most obvious question of all: who counts as

This is an interesting read, and a good review of Giridharadas. But I'm frustrated that it fails to grapple with the most obvious question of all: who counts as rich? Instead, we get "Winners Take All aims at today’s upper-crust in a world where wealth has continued to calcify into stock dividends and plush inheritances of the global one-percent...". It's the sort of line that makes me think either Giridharadas or Meyer haven't done their homework, because entering the global one percent takes an income of around $32,000, or a net worth of around $770,000. The average member of the global one percent doesn't have any stock at all, much less a plush inheritance! 46% of Americans break the global 1% income threshold, and ~5% break the wealth threshold. The global one percent are defined by international divides, not intranational ones. Back home, the 1% continues to be a bizarre construct that conflates heart surgeons with Waltons; the bottom half of the 1% have seen their incomes roughly triple since 1950, while the top 0.01% have seen a 10x increase. Even Darren Walker's million a year only puts him around the 0.3% of earners. I don't mean to discount the article or the book: it's fascinating to see a comparison of how the ultra-rich view social wellbeing compared to the rest of us. But I do think there's a bit of a failure to grapple with exactly what extreme wealth is, and just how far up the scale goes.

antisthenes 8y ago
It's not hard. https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/worldwealthreport_2017_final.pdf https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/worldwe... Everyone with over $5 million USD of investable wealth counts as rich. The report shows that there are at least 1.65 million of such individuals across the planet, with roughly 157,200 of them having a net worth in excess of $30 million. What about the 15 million in the $1-5 million band? I think you could argue that many of them reside in really high COL areas, so most of their assets could be in the form of primary residence real estate. I'm not going to argue if that makes them 'rich' either way. Looking at it this way completely avoids ridiculous metrics like "global 1% by income" that completely ignore the effects of relative wealth and cost of living areas.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  The "global 1%" stat doesn't seem entirely useless, as a guide to national prosperity after PPP. But you're obviously right that national corrections are totally inadequate to distinguish e.g. NYC incomes from Tulsa incomes. And using it to measure who in America is rich is simply stupid. The more I think about it, the more I like $5M USD investable. I was getting set to argue that the $3M-$5M range gets you an above-average income via pure investment, maybe suggest "wealth outside of primary residence", point out purchasing power discrepancies, but all that quibbling just proves it's the wrong metric. At $5M in wealth, it ought to be possible to go basically anywhere in the world and live comfortably without working. I think that's indisputably "rich".
  - antisthenes 8y ago
    > At $5M in wealth, it ought to be possible to go basically anywhere in the world and live comfortably without working. Yes, I like that definition as well. If you look at the wealth report, $5M is also the threshold for getting the highest return on investment and having access to the best possible investment advice. In other words, it would take pretty serious mismanagement to squander $5M if you aim for a normal lifestyle and not exorbitant luxury. But I'm not sure where that gets us. So we've defined a level of 'rich'. That's still not good enough to base a policy on. What's our aim? Capping the wealth? Taxing it? What's to be done with the wealth? Does the policy have a chance of being politically viable? I'm not sure anything can even be done on an individual country level. Once you reach that level of wealth - your capital is mobile, and essentially global. There are no boundaries for wealth management firms with wealthy clients.

antisthenes 8y ago

It's not hard. https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/worldwealthreport_2017_final.pdf https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/worldwe... Everyone with over $5 million USD of investable wealth counts as rich. The report shows that there are at least 1.65 million of such individuals across the planet, with roughly 157,200 of them having a net worth in excess of $30 million. What about the 15 million in the $1-5 million band? I think you could argue that many of them reside in really high COL areas, so most of their assets could be in the form of primary residence real estate. I'm not going to argue if that makes them 'rich' either way. Looking at it this way completely avoids ridiculous metrics like "global 1% by income" that completely ignore the effects of relative wealth and cost of living areas.

Bartweiss 8y ago
The "global 1%" stat doesn't seem entirely useless, as a guide to national prosperity after PPP. But you're obviously right that national corrections are totally inadequate to distinguish e.g. NYC incomes from Tulsa incomes. And using it to measure who in America is rich is simply stupid. The more I think about it, the more I like $5M USD investable. I was getting set to argue that the $3M-$5M range gets you an above-average income via pure investment, maybe suggest "wealth outside of primary residence", point out purchasing power discrepancies, but all that quibbling just proves it's the wrong metric. At $5M in wealth, it ought to be possible to go basically anywhere in the world and live comfortably without working. I think that's indisputably "rich".
- antisthenes 8y ago
  > At $5M in wealth, it ought to be possible to go basically anywhere in the world and live comfortably without working. Yes, I like that definition as well. If you look at the wealth report, $5M is also the threshold for getting the highest return on investment and having access to the best possible investment advice. In other words, it would take pretty serious mismanagement to squander $5M if you aim for a normal lifestyle and not exorbitant luxury. But I'm not sure where that gets us. So we've defined a level of 'rich'. That's still not good enough to base a policy on. What's our aim? Capping the wealth? Taxing it? What's to be done with the wealth? Does the policy have a chance of being politically viable? I'm not sure anything can even be done on an individual country level. Once you reach that level of wealth - your capital is mobile, and essentially global. There are no boundaries for wealth management firms with wealthy clients.