Richest 1% wealthier than bottom 90

[Al6200]

I've heard this claim repeated a lot, and I even saw it on the Daily Show, but all of the statistics I can find from reputable sources paint a different picture.

For example, according to The World Bank the richest 10% actually hold only 30.5% of the nation's annual income.

The richest 10% having 1/3 the wealth of the bottom 90% is a far cry from the richest 1% having more wealth than the bottom 90%.

However I considered that they're defining wealth as assets and not as income. But then what is wealth? Property? Net worth?

[animehater]

I never really understood how it actually is supposed to matter to me how much a rich guy is richer than me. Good for him, I hope to join him or surpass him someday, not be a jealous little bitch about it.

[Der-Lowe]

Net worth.
And wealth distribution is waaaaaaaaaay better more unequal than income distribution, so that 1%-90% may be correct.

[ThePretenders]

Income and wealth are two different things.
Income - how much you earn in a fiscal year
Wealth - how much you own in real/monetary assets

I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

[uhnoesanoob]

So wait, the people who hold the most wealth have the most wealth? NO WAI

[SmilezRoyale]

It sounds horrible, but i think that if you put it in terms of standard deviations it would make a bit more sense...

[Gunter45]

So, someone has definitively proven that a lot of people get the shit end of the stick? How much time and money was devoted to this?

[Al6200]

Is net worth really a good measure of "wealth"? Income is how much money you can spend, what you can actually live off of. If I have 10k worth of stock, what matters is the income I'm making off of that stock, not how much there actually is. After all, it's not like someone ever just goes out and actually spends from their net worth.

Think about it. Is someone who owns a million dollar house but only makes 10k a year wealthier then someone who makes 100k a year but owns a 250k house. Unless the first guy sells his house and converts that money into stocks or bonds, then that's not real "wealth", because he can't use it. Unless he wants to deplete his assets, the only money that he can actually use is his interest, which is income.

[Elfer]

At 7/14/08 05:29 PM, Al6200 wrote: Think about it. Is someone who owns a million dollar house but only makes 10k a year wealthier then someone who makes 100k a year but owns a 250k house. Unless the first guy sells his house and converts that money into stocks or bonds, then that's not real "wealth", because he can't use it.

Correct, he can sell his house and convert it to liquid assets. That's why wealth isn't just income, it's income and holdings.

In addition, wealth isn't just defined by how much you can spend on luxury goods. Owning a large amount of non-liquid assets usually provides you with a great deal of leverage, both financially and politically.

Furthermore, what do you think would happen to these figures if we removed the average cost of living from each person's income? I'd say that money that you need to spend just to stay fed and sheltered doesn't count as "wealth" either.

The truth is, the top 1% have control over more assets than the bottom 90% do.