6 ms·

that 3 people hold more wealth than the bottom 10% (or ~33 million people). With how the US works, money is worth more than being a person.

naming_the_user 2y ago
This is a daft statement though. I almost certainly have more wealth than the bottom 10% in my country because a lot of people either have 10 quid or are in debt. It makes more sense to compare to the median.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  They most likely meant "more than 10% of the population own combined". That's a level of wealth inequality last seen in the old medieval fiefdom ages, and more than a few rulers met a premature end...
  - naming_the_user 2y ago
    My point is that this isn't uncommon at all. I know tons of people who have nothing. Literally nothing other than things like, I dunno, their cell phone and clothes. _Anyone_ has more than a thousand of them combined. If you choose the correct group of "the least well off" then it's like trying to divide by zero.
    - exceptione 2y ago
      This point is futile though. Changes are high that your country is a kleptocracy or dictatorship, or has a very weak system. Huge wealth imbalance is a STRONG MARKER of malformed governance. A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Desperate people do not have the "luxury" of being a democratic participant. That is why autocracies love miserable, poor people.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Income inequality isn't that high though, is it? The rich generally try to do everything they can to avoid income as income is taxed. In the US, somewhere around 20% of the population are in the top 1% when observed over time.
        exceptione 2y ago
        > Income inequality isn't that high though Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. Why would we continue to fool ourself? 20% of the population in the top 1% sounds really bad for the other 80%. But then again, what share of the USA do the top 100 wealthy people own? And this all still sidesteps the question why does one distract themself while the democratic system that should protect them is being eaten alive? Neither False Balance nor Binary Belief Trap is going to save them.
        9rx 2y ago
        > Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. That doesn't imply a high income or some extreme income inequality, though. There are the usual tricks like amassing wealth and borrowing against it in order to secure access to dollars without needing an income. There is income inequality to some degree. Some people do make more than others. That is undeniably seen in income data. But is the income inequality really that high?
        exceptione 2y ago
        ok, whether you file your billions as income or as capital does not matter. What matters is 1. in a democracy every vote should be counted equal 2. if just a tiny fraction of the populace has immense financial power 2a. you risk they get to turn that into political power 2b. effectively demolishing point 1 You are now at step 2b. The next steps I would not even mention.
  - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
    It looks like[1] combining the bottom 10% gets you a substantially negative number, such that even the bottom 1% have more wealth than the bottom 10% combined. [1] https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentiles/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentiles/ under "Household Net Worth Percentiles for the United States in 2020"
    - oskarkk 2y ago
      Huh, that's an interesting paradox, I've never thought about this in this way.
      - naming_the_user 2y ago
        The bottom and top 10% of most groups are going to be odd in this way. Imagine if you took the entire population and asked them to run a 10k. It's very likely that 10% couldn't even finish it whereas the top 1% would be close to race pace.
rsanek 2y ago
this is a meaningless metric. if you have a positive net worth, you hold more wealth than the bottom 25% combined. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/whats-your-net-worth-25-of-americans-say-theirs-is-$0-or-less https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/whats-your-net-worth-25-of-a...
- r00fus 2y ago
  Even that sounds really problematic, societally speaking. Is it good that 25% of the population has a zero or negative net worth?
  - edanm 2y ago
    That's why it's a meaningless statistic. Because zero net worth is the status many people are in when young - which makes sense, you haven't had time to build any net worth! And negative net worth happens when you take on debt, most commonly in the US student debt. Maybe there is a valid metric worth talking about, but this metric rates the average student in med school as extremely badly off, despite them very likely going on to become one of the top 10% when they're older. So this statistic is just not a very good way to look at this.
wdr1 2y ago
> With how the US works, money is worth more than being a person. [citation needed] If anything recent elections in the US have shown money is not the most important factor.

naming_the_user 2y ago

This is a daft statement though. I almost certainly have more wealth than the bottom 10% in my country because a lot of people either have 10 quid or are in debt. It makes more sense to compare to the median.

mschuster91 2y ago
They most likely meant "more than 10% of the population own combined". That's a level of wealth inequality last seen in the old medieval fiefdom ages, and more than a few rulers met a premature end...
- naming_the_user 2y ago
  My point is that this isn't uncommon at all. I know tons of people who have nothing. Literally nothing other than things like, I dunno, their cell phone and clothes. _Anyone_ has more than a thousand of them combined. If you choose the correct group of "the least well off" then it's like trying to divide by zero.
  - exceptione 2y ago
    This point is futile though. Changes are high that your country is a kleptocracy or dictatorship, or has a very weak system. Huge wealth imbalance is a STRONG MARKER of malformed governance. A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Desperate people do not have the "luxury" of being a democratic participant. That is why autocracies love miserable, poor people.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Income inequality isn't that high though, is it? The rich generally try to do everything they can to avoid income as income is taxed. In the US, somewhere around 20% of the population are in the top 1% when observed over time.
      - exceptione 2y ago
        > Income inequality isn't that high though Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. Why would we continue to fool ourself? 20% of the population in the top 1% sounds really bad for the other 80%. But then again, what share of the USA do the top 100 wealthy people own? And this all still sidesteps the question why does one distract themself while the democratic system that should protect them is being eaten alive? Neither False Balance nor Binary Belief Trap is going to save them.
        9rx 2y ago
        > Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. That doesn't imply a high income or some extreme income inequality, though. There are the usual tricks like amassing wealth and borrowing against it in order to secure access to dollars without needing an income. There is income inequality to some degree. Some people do make more than others. That is undeniably seen in income data. But is the income inequality really that high?
        exceptione 2y ago
        ok, whether you file your billions as income or as capital does not matter. What matters is 1. in a democracy every vote should be counted equal 2. if just a tiny fraction of the populace has immense financial power 2a. you risk they get to turn that into political power 2b. effectively demolishing point 1 You are now at step 2b. The next steps I would not even mention.
- ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
  It looks like[1] combining the bottom 10% gets you a substantially negative number, such that even the bottom 1% have more wealth than the bottom 10% combined. [1] https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentiles/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentiles/ under "Household Net Worth Percentiles for the United States in 2020"
  - oskarkk 2y ago
    Huh, that's an interesting paradox, I've never thought about this in this way.
    - naming_the_user 2y ago
      The bottom and top 10% of most groups are going to be odd in this way. Imagine if you took the entire population and asked them to run a 10k. It's very likely that 10% couldn't even finish it whereas the top 1% would be close to race pace.

rsanek 2y ago

this is a meaningless metric. if you have a positive net worth, you hold more wealth than the bottom 25% combined. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/whats-your-net-worth-25-of-americans-say-theirs-is-$0-or-less https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/whats-your-net-worth-25-of-a...

r00fus 2y ago
Even that sounds really problematic, societally speaking. Is it good that 25% of the population has a zero or negative net worth?
- edanm 2y ago
  That's why it's a meaningless statistic. Because zero net worth is the status many people are in when young - which makes sense, you haven't had time to build any net worth! And negative net worth happens when you take on debt, most commonly in the US student debt. Maybe there is a valid metric worth talking about, but this metric rates the average student in med school as extremely badly off, despite them very likely going on to become one of the top 10% when they're older. So this statistic is just not a very good way to look at this.

wdr1 2y ago

> With how the US works, money is worth more than being a person. [citation needed] If anything recent elections in the US have shown money is not the most important factor.