4 ms·
Net worth is probably not a great metric. There are a lot of well-paid people in the US who live expensive, flashy lifestyles that cost them just a little more
by trothoun 13y ago
Net worth is probably not a great metric. There are a lot of well-paid people in the US who live expensive, flashy lifestyles that cost them just a little more than they earn every year, and consequently have a negative or near zero net-worth. I don't think most people would consider them have-nots.
- iooi 13y agoConsidering that you are "worth" what you "have", net worth is the only metric. GGP's coment is spot on, there is a 1:1000 difference between billionaires and millionaires, and another 1:1000 difference between millionaires and people worth 100k. Guess what? In the United States, less than 65% of people have a net worth under that [1]. So by this logic, the majority of the United States's have-nots are between a 1:1000 and a 1:1,000,000 difference compared to haves. [1] http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-wealth-cm257517 http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor...
- bradleyjg 13y ago> and another 1:1000 difference between millionaires and people worth 100k. 1,000,000 (one million) / 1,000 (one thousand) = 1,000 (one thousand) not 100,000 (one hundred thousand).
- twoodfin 13y agoI'd imagine most graduates of top medical schools have a negative net worth when they receive their degrees, and probably retain that upside-down status for several years. That doesn't make them "have nots".