4 ms·

Is this one of those things where the vast majority of the 3.8B has a zero or negative net worth? I'm not trying to deny anything about wealth inequality, but

Is this one of those things where the vast majority of the 3.8B has a zero or negative net worth? I'm not trying to deny anything about wealth inequality, but I wonder what this clickbaity statement really says about anything.

coldtea 8y ago
>Is this one of those things where the vast majority of the 3.8B has a zero or negative net worth? How does that make it better? If anything, it makes it worse...
- zulln 8y ago
  That would me that you alone has more money than the poorest 3.8B people, making it somewhat clickbaity to bring up the billionaires?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    It says the top 26 billionaires own as much as the poorest 3.8B, not that they own more. Unless you're worth more than the top 26 billionaires combined, you don't have the net worth to match 3.8B people.
    - setr 8y ago
      Sure, but if 2B of that population is in the negative, then even at minimum wage I do have the net worth to match 2B; its just the next 1.8B where comparison even starts to make sense.
  - objektif 8y ago
    There is nothing clickbaity in this title. May be you just are ok with the inequality and this fact makes you uncomfortable.
- Voloskaya 8y ago
  That doesn't make it better or worse. That would simply show that this statistic is irrelevant and clickbaity. Just in the US 17M households have negative net worth. Would a title such as "A worker earning minimum wage owns as much as the 17M poorest households in the country" be honest journalism?
  - objektif 8y ago
    Yeah kind of would be honest whats the problem here? Are we disputing math now?
Balero 8y ago
I agree completely. Someone living hand to mouth subsidence farming has about $0. Someone who went to a top quality law school, or medical school. Who has a nice car on lease, and a hefty mortgage, maybe a bit of credit card debt. But who is also brining in 6 figures. could have -$X00,000. In my opinion the second person has more 'wealth' than the first person. But on paper, the education and opportunities are not counted. But the debt needed to pay for these is counted. You get the opposite problem when you look at just income. People who have a vast wealth, but don't work, would be counted as being very poor. Sadly finding someone's 'wealth' is quite complicated, and doesn't make an easy headline.
- derekp7 8y ago
  Just need to find a way to put a value on intangible assets. If that diploma, for example, can bring in an extra 150 grand a year, then I would put a value of that asset at around 3 million or so (assuming a 5% return on investment). Being born in a country with opportunity brings in at least $20k a year (minimum wage), so that asset is worth 400K total. Getting stuck in a high cost of living area where you need $50K a year just to survive may have a negative one million dollar value.

coldtea 8y ago

>Is this one of those things where the vast majority of the 3.8B has a zero or negative net worth? How does that make it better? If anything, it makes it worse...

zulln 8y ago
That would me that you alone has more money than the poorest 3.8B people, making it somewhat clickbaity to bring up the billionaires?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It says the top 26 billionaires own as much as the poorest 3.8B, not that they own more. Unless you're worth more than the top 26 billionaires combined, you don't have the net worth to match 3.8B people.
  - setr 8y ago
    Sure, but if 2B of that population is in the negative, then even at minimum wage I do have the net worth to match 2B; its just the next 1.8B where comparison even starts to make sense.
- objektif 8y ago
  There is nothing clickbaity in this title. May be you just are ok with the inequality and this fact makes you uncomfortable.
Voloskaya 8y ago
That doesn't make it better or worse. That would simply show that this statistic is irrelevant and clickbaity. Just in the US 17M households have negative net worth. Would a title such as "A worker earning minimum wage owns as much as the 17M poorest households in the country" be honest journalism?
- objektif 8y ago
  Yeah kind of would be honest whats the problem here? Are we disputing math now?

Balero 8y ago

I agree completely. Someone living hand to mouth subsidence farming has about $0. Someone who went to a top quality law school, or medical school. Who has a nice car on lease, and a hefty mortgage, maybe a bit of credit card debt. But who is also brining in 6 figures. could have -$X00,000. In my opinion the second person has more 'wealth' than the first person. But on paper, the education and opportunities are not counted. But the debt needed to pay for these is counted. You get the opposite problem when you look at just income. People who have a vast wealth, but don't work, would be counted as being very poor. Sadly finding someone's 'wealth' is quite complicated, and doesn't make an easy headline.

derekp7 8y ago
Just need to find a way to put a value on intangible assets. If that diploma, for example, can bring in an extra 150 grand a year, then I would put a value of that asset at around 3 million or so (assuming a 5% return on investment). Being born in a country with opportunity brings in at least $20k a year (minimum wage), so that asset is worth 400K total. Getting stuck in a high cost of living area where you need $50K a year just to survive may have a negative one million dollar value.