3 ms·

I think people is the wrong metric for this statistic. A large number of just-barely-affluent nouveau riche could drown out a handful of old money robber barons

I think people is the wrong metric for this statistic. A large number of just-barely-affluent nouveau riche could drown out a handful of old money robber barons that own the world. The much more interesting statistic would slice it by dollar: What percentage of dollars are owned by first-generation wealthy versus old money?

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
Really depends on what you’re trying to use the number for. If you’re trying to study wealthy people, it makes sense to use stats that are counting people filtered by wealth. If you are trying to study wealth itself, it makes sense to use stats that are weighted by dollar.
- jxramos 5y ago
  that's what I figured, the people metric seems more pertinent to ideas of economic mobility across the population as a whole, we could think of a population percentile, like say jumping into the notorious 1%. But the other metric is interesting too, something like an age x wealth product, the longer the wealth was held the higher the score, and the more wealth held the higher the score too. One could imagine like an area under net worth curve and create a histogram with decades of time as buckets, say across a 300 year span maybe?
wcarss 5y ago
I spent the last 25 minutes trying to find out exactly that, and have so far come up nearly blank, but I agree that dollars inherited is a way more useful question. The meme of "a high percent of people who are millionaires are first-generation millionaires" is pervasive. Googling this returns mostly investment scheme websites and CNBC/USA Today/etc clickbait quoting "The Millionaire Next Door", and talking about how "If They Did It, You Can Do It Too!" -- it's like something straight out of lies, damned lies, and statistics.
skybrian 5y ago
It's more interesting for some purposes, but if you're looking for achievable goals and who you should emulate, the old money types are outliers.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

Really depends on what you’re trying to use the number for. If you’re trying to study wealthy people, it makes sense to use stats that are counting people filtered by wealth. If you are trying to study wealth itself, it makes sense to use stats that are weighted by dollar.

jxramos 5y ago
that's what I figured, the people metric seems more pertinent to ideas of economic mobility across the population as a whole, we could think of a population percentile, like say jumping into the notorious 1%. But the other metric is interesting too, something like an age x wealth product, the longer the wealth was held the higher the score, and the more wealth held the higher the score too. One could imagine like an area under net worth curve and create a histogram with decades of time as buckets, say across a 300 year span maybe?

wcarss 5y ago

I spent the last 25 minutes trying to find out exactly that, and have so far come up nearly blank, but I agree that dollars inherited is a way more useful question. The meme of "a high percent of people who are millionaires are first-generation millionaires" is pervasive. Googling this returns mostly investment scheme websites and CNBC/USA Today/etc clickbait quoting "The Millionaire Next Door", and talking about how "If They Did It, You Can Do It Too!" -- it's like something straight out of lies, damned lies, and statistics.

skybrian 5y ago

It's more interesting for some purposes, but if you're looking for achievable goals and who you should emulate, the old money types are outliers.