3 ms·
This measures "wealth", not income. You can be in the top 1% of earners, but if you save nothing, you can still have a net worth of $0. Apparently, the median
by gridlockd 7y ago
This measures "wealth", not income. You can be in the top 1% of earners, but if you save nothing, you can still have a net worth of $0.
Apparently, the median Ukrainian has only $40 to their name, by whatever means they measure wealth. However, Ukraine has compulsory socialized retirement funds. Minimum wage is $160/month.
The median US-American supposedly has 60,000$ to their name, which must be mostly due to IRAs.
- trymas 7y agoYes, I understand that wealth is not income, but in Ukraine there are plenty of oligarchs worth multi-billion sums. Dividing that wealth over whole Ukraine population is definitely more than 40$ per person. Though probably that's where rampant corruptions comes in and I will just guess that rich oligarchs "on paper" have little to no official wealth in Ukraine (have no clue how wealth is calculated country-wise if it's international)?
- gridlockd 7y ago> Yes, I understand that wealth is not income, but in Ukraine there are plenty of oligarchs worth multi-billion sums. Dividing that wealth over whole Ukraine population is definitely more than 40$ per person. That's the arithmetic mean, not the median. The median is computed by sorting all the values from low to high and then picking the middle one. That's why it's a better measure for ordinary people. The few outliers at the top are not factored in.
- trymas 7y agoAh. Indeed. My error and feeling dumb for this mistake. Dunno why I always mix mean and median.. (clearly English is not my first language).