4 ms·
I think that a PPP adjustment is required here to produce a reasonable analysis. Or, excluding primary residence. For the 0.1% or higher (whose wealth is suffi
by stegosaurus 12y ago
I think that a PPP adjustment is required here to produce a reasonable analysis. Or, excluding primary residence.
For the 0.1% or higher (whose wealth is sufficient for them to take advantage of globetrotting) absolute numbers might be important.
'The 1%' is not simply a matter of wealth; a person with $500K in the UK and in Nigeria are not really equivalent. The former is just a person who owns a normal home in the South East outright, the latter may well be in a position of power.
- omh 12y agoI think that a PPP adjustment is required here to produce a reasonable analysis This article is in response to the recent Oxfam report which talked about the wealth of the global 1%. So in that context the absolute wealth, in the way that Oxfam measured it, is relevant.
- semperfaux 12y agoThen perhaps a better response to the Oxfam report would be to at least attempt a more realistic measurement of wealth and present something similar with that addition/adjustment.
- sanderjd 12y agoI'm not sure I understand why adjusting for primary residence ownership would make it "a more realistic measurement of wealth".
- IanCal 12y ago> 'The 1%' is not simply a matter of wealth; a person with $500K in the UK and in Nigeria are not really equivalent. The former is just a person who owns a normal home in the South East outright, the latter may well be in a position of power. Isn't this just trying to correct for people using their wealth inefficiently?