5 ms·
You're right that the "ebb and flow" on wealth is much less of a factor than on income, and that I conflated those two. But not controlling for age is still a
by chmod600 5y ago
You're right that the "ebb and flow" on wealth is much less of a factor than on income, and that I conflated those two.
But not controlling for age is still a major omission. A lot of middle class people are in the top 10% as they near retirement because they've been saving throughout their life. How many? The article doesn't say.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoI don't think I agree. The article is not making generalizations about the wealthy. It's about the top 10% wealthiest and stating they own 90% of stocks. If you wanted age normalized wealth, the top 10% would probably be a lot of rich kids whose peers have negative net worth. I'm sure that's an interesting cut, but it's a different topic.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ska 5y agoThis does not seem to be true, at least by any numbers I could quickly find. Seems like median net worth for retired folks is under $250k, net worth for 90th percentile folks is 1.25mm. If you restrict to 65-69 age group, the median only shifts to about 270k, 90th percentile is a little under 2mm. To get to 1mm net worth at that age group, you have to go up to about the 80 percentile. It seems you are correct that the 90 percentile shifts a fair bit at retirement age (65-69 is peak net worth) but it doesn't effect the middle very much, and you have to be > 20% to catch that 1.25mm number at any age group.