5 ms·

> The USA ranks 26th for median wealth Wealth is also a function of age - older people tend to have more - and that ranking is not normalized by such extraneou

> The USA ranks 26th for median wealth Wealth is also a function of age - older people tend to have more - and that ranking is not normalized by such extraneous factors. The US is number 2 by median income, and number 1 for median disposable income, both of which are pretty important, especially to younger people that want cash flow to enjoy life.

milchek 4y ago
Out of curiosity, where did you get these numbers from? I’m not from the US, but what I do read and see on the internet is that people in the US also have a lot of debt (education, medical, and of course credit) I’m surprised that even for median disposable the US is number 1. But then again, maybe it’s a case of the internet being drowned out by a vocal minority?
- Noumenon72 4y ago
  Rich people have more debt than poor people because they have more ability to repay. The only way debt could truly signify one country is worse off than another is if the situation were unstable (people accumulating debt in a short-term crisis and they will not be able to repay).
- Bromeo 4y ago
  I was also surprised, but it seems to be true. Wikipedia lists the median disposable income after adjusting for local prices (PPP), and USA is first on that list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
- unilynx 4y ago
  Building up debt seems a good way to increase disposable income, at least in the short run.
dgb23 4y ago
Number 1 for disposable income sounds off. Are daycare, tuitions, healthcare, public transport, rent/mortgages etc. factored in?
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c... not sure how accurate wikipedia is here, but I've seen this claim elsewhere
  - dgb23 4y ago
    So there is a difference between disposable and discretionary income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_i... Apparently what I meant above is discretionary income, which would include all fundamental bills/payments such as healthcare etc. Disposable income does not include those, it only includes income plus direct payments from the government. What would interest me is discretionary income, which includes healthcare, mortgages etc. plus education, public transport, daycare, energy and I'm possibly forgetting some fundamental things. "Disposable" is very much misleading here. If you have 1000$ "disposable" income but you still have to pay for or cannot afford all of the mentioned things then you are in worse shape than someone who has 500$ "disposable" income but can lean on public infrastructure and subsidies for those things. The difference can be quite massive. The reason I'm specifically suspicious of the US here is that public infrastructure seems to be quite a bit behind and fundamental things like healthcare is substantially more expensive than in some of the most developed countries.
    - quantumwannabe 4y ago
      The numbers on the GP's page include the value of government benefits. If you exclude the European social benefits, their median disposable income is even lower. >The following table represents data from OECD's "median disposable income per person" metric, which includes all forms of income as well as taxes and transfers in kind from governments for benefits such as healthcare and education and is equivalised by dividing by the square root of household size. This metric, in addition to using a median rather than a mean, uses "data calculated according to the new OECD terms of reference"; compared to previous terms of reference, these "include a more detailed breakdown of current transfers received and paid by households as well as a revised definition of household income, including the value of goods produced for own consumption as an element of self-employed income." As OECD displays median disposable incomes in each country's respective currency, the values were converted here using the World Bank's PPP conversion factors, accounting for each country's cost of living in the year that the disposable median income was recorded. Unless noted otherwise, all data refers to 2019. Data are in United States dollars at current prices and current purchasing power parity for private consumption for the reference year.
themitigating 4y ago
Why would you normalize for age?
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Because that wealth isn't useful to individuals who are far away from accessing it, and that access / wealth can still change as they approach the age of access. Additionally, the idea of "start low end high" is being questioned by many individuals who would rather have a more flat curve while starting higher initially. GP even mentioned the reason in their post.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  Because old people tend to have more wealth since they had a lifetime to accumulate. This places with older people tend to be richer, but that does not necessarily translate to what happens to an average person in a society. For example, in the US the median network for an 69 year old (right around retirement) is over 33 times as much as an 18 year old [1], with values in between spread as expected. So a society with significantly more old people (such as Japan) would have higher median wealth but not necessarily more income (for example, US pays more than Japan on average [2], but we're younger). So, if you move to Japan from the US assuming you'll end up richer, you may be making a mistake because you made that choice based on comparing things incorrectly. This is why it matters. [1] https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/ [2] https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/japan/usa?sc=XEAA https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/japan/usa?sc=XE...
olalonde 4y ago
That metric probably doesn't factor in cost of living, cost of education, cost of healthcare, etc. The US isn't particularly young. But regardless, I didn't mean that the US was not a good place to live. It does extremely well on most metrics. My point was that there are many countries, including ones that are tiny in comparison (definitely not "top dog"), that enjoy comparable standards of living. The US could retain its high standards of living without being the "top dog".
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >That metric probably doesn't factor in cost of living, cost of education, cost of healthcare, etc. Ito does, it's PPP adjusted. Just look it up instead of projecting flaws to obtain a result you desire. >My point was that there are many countries, including ones that are tiny in comparison (definitely not "top dog"), that enjoy a comparable standards of living. I agree completely. All the top countries would be good places to live, with tradeoffs here and there. But for most of the world, the US is a terrific alternative to where they are, at least if one wants to raise their standard of living.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    The US does indeed do better than most of the world. I just don't think it's fair to credit its success to its status as a "top dog" or superpower. In my opinion, the vast majority of the credit goes elsewhere, e.g. its (largely) free enterprise system, capacity to attract foreign talent, top universities, culture, etc.
wandernotlost 4y ago
The US is way down the list at 120 for income equality, worse than most of the "developed world". That median hides a lot in a country of over 320 million. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/gini-index-coefficient-distribution-of-family-income/country-comparison https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/gini-index-coef...
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  The US also has just about the richest poor in the world - so if reducing inequality means making the poor demonstrably poorer, is that a good solution? Last I checked, poverty line in the US is at the 85th percentile in world income. And most importantly, most of that inequality and poverty levels are what are called pre-tax-transfer: they do not account the value given the poor and lower incomes via benefits, which lowers a lot of that inequality (and makes our poor even richer than most of the planet). For fun, pick a country that you think is better for lower income people, and let's look into it :) Inequality is relative. Absolute income means a significant amount, even more so to the poor.

milchek 4y ago

Out of curiosity, where did you get these numbers from? I’m not from the US, but what I do read and see on the internet is that people in the US also have a lot of debt (education, medical, and of course credit) I’m surprised that even for median disposable the US is number 1. But then again, maybe it’s a case of the internet being drowned out by a vocal minority?

Noumenon72 4y ago
Rich people have more debt than poor people because they have more ability to repay. The only way debt could truly signify one country is worse off than another is if the situation were unstable (people accumulating debt in a short-term crisis and they will not be able to repay).
Bromeo 4y ago
I was also surprised, but it seems to be true. Wikipedia lists the median disposable income after adjusting for local prices (PPP), and USA is first on that list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
unilynx 4y ago
Building up debt seems a good way to increase disposable income, at least in the short run.

dgb23 4y ago

Number 1 for disposable income sounds off. Are daycare, tuitions, healthcare, public transport, rent/mortgages etc. factored in?

throwaway6734 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c... not sure how accurate wikipedia is here, but I've seen this claim elsewhere
- dgb23 4y ago
  So there is a difference between disposable and discretionary income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_i... Apparently what I meant above is discretionary income, which would include all fundamental bills/payments such as healthcare etc. Disposable income does not include those, it only includes income plus direct payments from the government. What would interest me is discretionary income, which includes healthcare, mortgages etc. plus education, public transport, daycare, energy and I'm possibly forgetting some fundamental things. "Disposable" is very much misleading here. If you have 1000$ "disposable" income but you still have to pay for or cannot afford all of the mentioned things then you are in worse shape than someone who has 500$ "disposable" income but can lean on public infrastructure and subsidies for those things. The difference can be quite massive. The reason I'm specifically suspicious of the US here is that public infrastructure seems to be quite a bit behind and fundamental things like healthcare is substantially more expensive than in some of the most developed countries.
  - quantumwannabe 4y ago
    The numbers on the GP's page include the value of government benefits. If you exclude the European social benefits, their median disposable income is even lower. >The following table represents data from OECD's "median disposable income per person" metric, which includes all forms of income as well as taxes and transfers in kind from governments for benefits such as healthcare and education and is equivalised by dividing by the square root of household size. This metric, in addition to using a median rather than a mean, uses "data calculated according to the new OECD terms of reference"; compared to previous terms of reference, these "include a more detailed breakdown of current transfers received and paid by households as well as a revised definition of household income, including the value of goods produced for own consumption as an element of self-employed income." As OECD displays median disposable incomes in each country's respective currency, the values were converted here using the World Bank's PPP conversion factors, accounting for each country's cost of living in the year that the disposable median income was recorded. Unless noted otherwise, all data refers to 2019. Data are in United States dollars at current prices and current purchasing power parity for private consumption for the reference year.

themitigating 4y ago

Why would you normalize for age?

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Because that wealth isn't useful to individuals who are far away from accessing it, and that access / wealth can still change as they approach the age of access. Additionally, the idea of "start low end high" is being questioned by many individuals who would rather have a more flat curve while starting higher initially. GP even mentioned the reason in their post.
ChrisLomont 4y ago
Because old people tend to have more wealth since they had a lifetime to accumulate. This places with older people tend to be richer, but that does not necessarily translate to what happens to an average person in a society. For example, in the US the median network for an 69 year old (right around retirement) is over 33 times as much as an 18 year old [1], with values in between spread as expected. So a society with significantly more old people (such as Japan) would have higher median wealth but not necessarily more income (for example, US pays more than Japan on average [2], but we're younger). So, if you move to Japan from the US assuming you'll end up richer, you may be making a mistake because you made that choice based on comparing things incorrectly. This is why it matters. [1] https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/ [2] https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/japan/usa?sc=XEAA https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/japan/usa?sc=XE...

olalonde 4y ago

That metric probably doesn't factor in cost of living, cost of education, cost of healthcare, etc. The US isn't particularly young. But regardless, I didn't mean that the US was not a good place to live. It does extremely well on most metrics. My point was that there are many countries, including ones that are tiny in comparison (definitely not "top dog"), that enjoy comparable standards of living. The US could retain its high standards of living without being the "top dog".

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>That metric probably doesn't factor in cost of living, cost of education, cost of healthcare, etc. Ito does, it's PPP adjusted. Just look it up instead of projecting flaws to obtain a result you desire. >My point was that there are many countries, including ones that are tiny in comparison (definitely not "top dog"), that enjoy a comparable standards of living. I agree completely. All the top countries would be good places to live, with tradeoffs here and there. But for most of the world, the US is a terrific alternative to where they are, at least if one wants to raise their standard of living.
- olalonde 4y ago
  The US does indeed do better than most of the world. I just don't think it's fair to credit its success to its status as a "top dog" or superpower. In my opinion, the vast majority of the credit goes elsewhere, e.g. its (largely) free enterprise system, capacity to attract foreign talent, top universities, culture, etc.

wandernotlost 4y ago

The US is way down the list at 120 for income equality, worse than most of the "developed world". That median hides a lot in a country of over 320 million. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/gini-index-coefficient-distribution-of-family-income/country-comparison https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/gini-index-coef...

ChrisLomont 4y ago
The US also has just about the richest poor in the world - so if reducing inequality means making the poor demonstrably poorer, is that a good solution? Last I checked, poverty line in the US is at the 85th percentile in world income. And most importantly, most of that inequality and poverty levels are what are called pre-tax-transfer: they do not account the value given the poor and lower incomes via benefits, which lowers a lot of that inequality (and makes our poor even richer than most of the planet). For fun, pick a country that you think is better for lower income people, and let's look into it :) Inequality is relative. Absolute income means a significant amount, even more so to the poor.