3 ms·

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 totall

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.