3 ms·

> If you interpret indicators correctly, there is no problem. Right, but when the indicators are used for ragebait headlines and editorials, for most people th

> If you interpret indicators correctly, there is no problem. Right, but when the indicators are used for ragebait headlines and editorials, for most people the reaction is outrage, and ends at that. So a more sober, considered discussion about the issue of wealth and inequality - which is an important discussion we need to have - can't happen.

tomhoward 8y ago
Also... > where I live individual debts have to paid and massive debts will make your life miserable. So I definitely think they should be included into a meaningful indicator There have been times over the past few years where my paper net worth was negative (due to running a startup that had no market value and having substantial personal debts), but still lived a materially comfortable western lifestyle - i.e., lived in a nice apartment in a nice area of a modern city, owned a nice-ish car, ate at nice restaurants, travelled frequently both domestically and abroad. Life wasn't exactly joyous, but it wasn't the debts that made life hard, it was the pressure of startup life. Recently my partner and I have become home-owners and so we now live in a nice-ish house in a nice-ish area, but the mortgage combined with my legacy debts mean that my net worth is still not very much above zero. The bank has been willing to lend to us because our combined present and future earning capacity makes us reasonably low-risk borrowers, so we get to live a lifestyle that could well put us in the top few percent in the world, even though we're not "rich" on paper. I could easily take out a couple of personal loans to spend on consumables, push our net worth below zero, but not have a materially less well-off existence. This is the problem with these studies; it equates "richness" with present dollars of assets or debt, completely divorced from the realities of your current and future lifestyle and earning capacity.

tomhoward 8y ago

Also... > where I live individual debts have to paid and massive debts will make your life miserable. So I definitely think they should be included into a meaningful indicator There have been times over the past few years where my paper net worth was negative (due to running a startup that had no market value and having substantial personal debts), but still lived a materially comfortable western lifestyle - i.e., lived in a nice apartment in a nice area of a modern city, owned a nice-ish car, ate at nice restaurants, travelled frequently both domestically and abroad. Life wasn't exactly joyous, but it wasn't the debts that made life hard, it was the pressure of startup life. Recently my partner and I have become home-owners and so we now live in a nice-ish house in a nice-ish area, but the mortgage combined with my legacy debts mean that my net worth is still not very much above zero. The bank has been willing to lend to us because our combined present and future earning capacity makes us reasonably low-risk borrowers, so we get to live a lifestyle that could well put us in the top few percent in the world, even though we're not "rich" on paper. I could easily take out a couple of personal loans to spend on consumables, push our net worth below zero, but not have a materially less well-off existence. This is the problem with these studies; it equates "richness" with present dollars of assets or debt, completely divorced from the realities of your current and future lifestyle and earning capacity.