6 ms·

Your 20k figure puts you at the top 3.65% globally in terms of annual income. You live in the richest nation ever to exist so that is unsurprising. Calculating

Your 20k figure puts you at the top 3.65% globally in terms of annual income. You live in the richest nation ever to exist so that is unsurprising. Calculating wealth is harder due to the nature of debt and asset values. (Debt isn't consistently reported/asset values require estimation) Source: http://www.globalrichlist.com http://www.globalrichlist.com

deogeo 7y ago
I selected US as the location, and entered 1000 $/year as the income. With that money, you end up homeless and starve to death in the US, yet that website shows you as being in the top 58% globally. That one gets to die homeless in the 'richest nation to exist' seems like poor comfort. So I don't think wealth measured in dollars is a good metric.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  How do you imagine people living off $1000 a year live around the globe? Most of them live in tin shacks with dirt floors without indoor plumbing or electricity subsisting on a diet of vegetables often grown by themselves. Frankly, I'd prefer a San Francisco tent city to that given the public services available here, not to mention the economic opportunities available.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    I imagine a lot of their activities aren't counted as revenue. They don't pay someone to build them a shack, but do it themselves, or with the help of family. They don't pay a babysitter, but have their community watch everyone's kids. They are able to build shacks, and farm vegetables, whereas in the US they'd be driven out by various anti-homeless laws (not their land to farm, illegal to build there, etc.). We don't have to talk hypotheticals - people living off $1000 a year around the globe are able to have children and families, whereas in the US, they are not (in any significant amount). And the economic opportunities in the US aren't relevant - we're trying to compare living on $1000 in the US vs. developing world, so adding 'economic opportunities' is saying "it's better to live on $1000 in the US because you'll be able to make more than $1000".
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      >I imagine a lot of their activities aren't counted as revenue. Pan handling, charitable services and governmental programs are not counted against that $1000 a year either. >We don't have to talk hypotheticals - people living off $1000 a year around the globe are able to have children and families, whereas in the US, they are not (in any significant amount). People who subsist solely on governmental benefits often have children. In fact the poor have more children than the wealthy. Compare Mexican birth rates per capita to the US, then compare African birth rates to Mexico if you don't believe me. Not having children is a sign of a wealthy society. >And the economic opportunities in the US aren't relevant - we're trying to compare living on $1000 in the US vs. developing world, so adding 'economic opportunities' is saying "it's better to live on $1000 in the US because you'll be able to make more than $1000". Any American who works more than 3 hours a week will be over that $1000 a year. Unemployment is virtually zero. Those who are unable to work get SSI.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    I'd prefer a San Francisco tent city California is currently experiencing a resurgence of "medieval diseases" that is believed to have started in the homeless population. I lived in a tent for nearly six years. I wouldn't want anything to do with a tent city in a major metropolitan area.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      I'll buy you a ticket to Rwanda if you prefer
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
DoreenMichele 7y ago
No, first I have made well under $20k annually. Using $20k as my income is, at best, a misreading of my comment. Second, that income supports three adults. While homeless, I knew other homeless people who had a higher per capita income than us. Currently, I have reason to believe that I'm one of the poorest people in the building I live in. I'm pretty damn poor for an American. You are also ignoring my previous statement that I've seen comments here from people from third world countries. My essential point is that, no, not all people reading HN are rich. I have no problem agreeing that most (more than 50% of) people here are well off. That seems like a reasonable assertion. But it doesn't take much to indicate that your addition of "if not all" is almost certainly not true.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Do you use any of the governmental or private social services? Medicare? Housing assistance? Food stamps? You don't have to answer but those programs don't exist in that manner for the majority of the world's population. The fact that you live in something that could be called a building is evidence of your wealth comparative to most of the people on this planet. Let me put it this way, if all global income were distributed equally it would be roughly ten thousand dollars a year per person. That's all in. Roads, police, social programs, private spending. Ten thousand dollars is the average household income in China. That's a the most fair distribution possible. Do you know what the per median per capita income is in India? A growing nation with a tech sector and nuclear weapons? Less than $700 a year. Here's the worst bit, people in India are also disabled and deal with the same personal struggles that you do. I'm not saying this to trivialize your life but the facts have to be put into perspective. People living in western nations, speaking English and with internet access really don't have the right to call themselves poor. Comparatively poor yes, nominally poor? Check your privilege.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Wow, what a way to completely and totally miss my point and turn it into a completely unwarranted personal attack. There are lots of people here who are not living in Western nations. I'm done arguing this. Your remarks are not remotely in good faith.

deogeo 7y ago

I selected US as the location, and entered 1000 $/year as the income. With that money, you end up homeless and starve to death in the US, yet that website shows you as being in the top 58% globally. That one gets to die homeless in the 'richest nation to exist' seems like poor comfort. So I don't think wealth measured in dollars is a good metric.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
How do you imagine people living off $1000 a year live around the globe? Most of them live in tin shacks with dirt floors without indoor plumbing or electricity subsisting on a diet of vegetables often grown by themselves. Frankly, I'd prefer a San Francisco tent city to that given the public services available here, not to mention the economic opportunities available.
- deogeo 7y ago
  I imagine a lot of their activities aren't counted as revenue. They don't pay someone to build them a shack, but do it themselves, or with the help of family. They don't pay a babysitter, but have their community watch everyone's kids. They are able to build shacks, and farm vegetables, whereas in the US they'd be driven out by various anti-homeless laws (not their land to farm, illegal to build there, etc.). We don't have to talk hypotheticals - people living off $1000 a year around the globe are able to have children and families, whereas in the US, they are not (in any significant amount). And the economic opportunities in the US aren't relevant - we're trying to compare living on $1000 in the US vs. developing world, so adding 'economic opportunities' is saying "it's better to live on $1000 in the US because you'll be able to make more than $1000".
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    >I imagine a lot of their activities aren't counted as revenue. Pan handling, charitable services and governmental programs are not counted against that $1000 a year either. >We don't have to talk hypotheticals - people living off $1000 a year around the globe are able to have children and families, whereas in the US, they are not (in any significant amount). People who subsist solely on governmental benefits often have children. In fact the poor have more children than the wealthy. Compare Mexican birth rates per capita to the US, then compare African birth rates to Mexico if you don't believe me. Not having children is a sign of a wealthy society. >And the economic opportunities in the US aren't relevant - we're trying to compare living on $1000 in the US vs. developing world, so adding 'economic opportunities' is saying "it's better to live on $1000 in the US because you'll be able to make more than $1000". Any American who works more than 3 hours a week will be over that $1000 a year. Unemployment is virtually zero. Those who are unable to work get SSI.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I'd prefer a San Francisco tent city California is currently experiencing a resurgence of "medieval diseases" that is believed to have started in the homeless population. I lived in a tent for nearly six years. I wouldn't want anything to do with a tent city in a major metropolitan area.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    I'll buy you a ticket to Rwanda if you prefer
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

DoreenMichele 7y ago

No, first I have made well under $20k annually. Using $20k as my income is, at best, a misreading of my comment. Second, that income supports three adults. While homeless, I knew other homeless people who had a higher per capita income than us. Currently, I have reason to believe that I'm one of the poorest people in the building I live in. I'm pretty damn poor for an American. You are also ignoring my previous statement that I've seen comments here from people from third world countries. My essential point is that, no, not all people reading HN are rich. I have no problem agreeing that most (more than 50% of) people here are well off. That seems like a reasonable assertion. But it doesn't take much to indicate that your addition of "if not all" is almost certainly not true.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Do you use any of the governmental or private social services? Medicare? Housing assistance? Food stamps? You don't have to answer but those programs don't exist in that manner for the majority of the world's population. The fact that you live in something that could be called a building is evidence of your wealth comparative to most of the people on this planet. Let me put it this way, if all global income were distributed equally it would be roughly ten thousand dollars a year per person. That's all in. Roads, police, social programs, private spending. Ten thousand dollars is the average household income in China. That's a the most fair distribution possible. Do you know what the per median per capita income is in India? A growing nation with a tech sector and nuclear weapons? Less than $700 a year. Here's the worst bit, people in India are also disabled and deal with the same personal struggles that you do. I'm not saying this to trivialize your life but the facts have to be put into perspective. People living in western nations, speaking English and with internet access really don't have the right to call themselves poor. Comparatively poor yes, nominally poor? Check your privilege.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Wow, what a way to completely and totally miss my point and turn it into a completely unwarranted personal attack. There are lots of people here who are not living in Western nations. I'm done arguing this. Your remarks are not remotely in good faith.