General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm among the richest 0.35% of people in the world by income. Where do you rank?
Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)
The results will probably surprise you.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
There's a charity appeal beneath that which I don't vouch for one way or the other, just as a warning.
EDIT: in response to a fair point downthread, divide your total household income by your household size when you do this. So, if you make $20K, and your spouse makes $30K, and you have two kids, divide $50K by 4 for $12,500.
JI7
(89,279 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)You could still be homeless here even if you make a lot more than people with homes in other places.
JI7
(89,279 posts)in the US.
at the same time we should continue to improve the US for itself. and help other nations .
after the cold war i think we should have had something similar to the marshall plan for all the nations which were affected and where the ground wars in the cold war were played out. like afghanistan.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)if I didn't have a relative willing to house me.
5 years waiting list for subsidized housing.
multiple hoops that are difficult for the brain damaged to jump through.
can't drive, so hard to get around.
subsidized half time job = $600 a month, not enough to live on if I lose my housing (my relative)
tell me how easy everything is here in the home of the brave, how privileged I am J17
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And even to get on that list to be able to build a house out of trash in Dharavi, you have to bribe several local officials and criminals (who are often the same people).
So, yes, as overtaxed and inadequate as they are, the US's social services are miles ahead of most of the world's.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)of being told how privileged I am.
especially when the people who keep telling me about my various privileges (as a white person; as an American) have spent all day slapping me for daring to mention the privilege of actual rich people, and the dubious origins of that privilege.
I survive because of the kindness of an elderly relative. Without that, I'd be homeless and dead within a year.
JI7
(89,279 posts)and walking down the street.
that's what is meant when white privilege is discussed. nobody said it meant all white people are living in mansions.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)about mansions. I'd be happy with an sro; I just don't want to live on the street in my 60s.
I had meningitis. 3 months in the hospital/nursing home. close to death and out of my mind most of that time. I got it from running down my immunity from overwork, physical labor, sweated labor.
and people like you are the reason people like me don't believe in the democratic party anymore. because people like you don't give a damn about people like me -- white, black, yellow or brown.
JI7
(89,279 posts)when i brought up racist cops and the people that killed emmet till.
Response to JI7 (Reply #21)
Post removed
JI7
(89,279 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the US used to be compared to Developed Nations. I don't see, eg, Norwegians 'rushing to get to the US'.
And much of the poverty in Mexico eg, was caused by NAFTA among other things.
Thanks, but I would like to aim for comparison of the US to First World countries.
riqster
(13,986 posts)We often forget the genesis of the social safety net that our trans-Atlantic compadres enjoy: neccessity. Things were so bad over there, a more socialist style of government was the only way to avoid a total collapse.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Basically the entire American income distribution fits within the top 4% of India's income distribution.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)A million+ a year. Illegally or legally. Of course, that's why we must hate America, because America is evil.
It is actually kind of sad, because the immigrations are going to take over, and the white liberals who are "oh so concerned" about things like free trade will be rendered moot eventually.
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)but only top 4% by assets. Interesting and informative, and it definitely makes me appreciate how hard most people in the world have it its no picnic getting by at my level here - I still can't afford to go out to eat, much less manage a car payment!.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I would say "I have no assets" if you asked me, but obviously that isn't true
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)How come we are so rich?
Did slavery help? Did hiring cheap labor from overseas make a dif?
Is it because we have overtaken a land rich in resources, moving the previous inhabitants onto reservations, and taking their lands for our own benefit?
How long can we stay rich given that resources are declining in quality and quantity? Are we now taking resources from other lands and other people to keep us rich?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's no one simple answer.
On the bright side:
We're a large temperate country oriented east-west, with significant Atlantic and Pacific shoreline and harbors. We have a lot of natural resources (helium, petrolium, natural gas, ores). We have amazing agricultural land. We have governments, nationally and locally, that are very non-corrupt by global standards. We have a strong labor movement that never devolved into a centrally-planned economy. We have relatively progressive taxation (our tax system is more progressive than most EU countries if you count their VAT).
On the dark side:
We have a huge military that we use to get our way. We were the last man standing when Europe burned itself down twice in the 20th century. We were able to expropriate a lot of land on the cheap from low-technology, thinly-populated Native American nations. We enslaved several million people to build this country and its economy early on.
MADem
(135,425 posts)One of our greatest strengths is our population diversity.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)joshcryer
(62,277 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)That is crazy to think about.
samsingh
(17,601 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Probably because my house equity is low, but investments are high.
HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)to think that even on Social Security, I'm in the top 4.19%. It's hard to imagine the lives of people who are in the lowest of the lowest. This calculator is for world-wide status. I'd be interested in seeing calculations within individual countries.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,380 posts)"If one has to give up either wine, women or song, give up song."
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)20% globally.
I think it's a crock, as US money income may be higher than that of poor countries, but so are housing and other costs, which are generally much lower in poor countries (which is why most of their populations aren't homeless, despite being poor)
JI7
(89,279 posts)look at what happened during the earthquake in haiti.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)people like yourself seem happy to celebrate the destruction of the us working class.
"look happy peons, you have it better than poor Haitians!"
But not for long, eh? Main street where I live looks something like this:
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Still, America's a wealthy nation and many of its people don't deserve to live in poverty.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)poverty?
and depending on the slum you live in, living in the photo above might be preferable.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Not that there are people in America that deserve to be poor.
7962
(11,841 posts)My late aunt was one of them. She could've had a nice place and nice stuff, but she chose to hang out with crooks and losers and lived half her life in a shack. And she was fine with it! She wasnt crazy, just stubborn as hell.
Lars39
(26,117 posts)Doesn't fit the agenda.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)samsingh
(17,601 posts)joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Believe me. I browse a website where they talk about bankers and elites and such and don't even realize how utterly wealthy they are in comparison. In fact, I've been called a far right winger for merely pointing out the wealth disparity. Indeed, I've been told that I was trying to make the most wealthy people in the world less wealthy by making the point!
JI7
(89,279 posts)and increase funding for them. and things like safety regulations are NOT hurting us economically but actually do the opposite.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Cut back the MIC.
(This image is every single countries' GDP vs the United States, if it isn't obvious.)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And we'd be able to afford a lot.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Unfortunately.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We're an absurdly rich country.
csziggy
(34,139 posts)Even if we are resource rich or monetarily well off.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Send along our sincere apologies for offending them
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)I merely allude to the fact that Americans are the most wealthy people on the planet, and here you come along whinging about bankers and the 1% (who are in reality, on the world scheme the top 0.0001%).
Oh, poor Americans, being fleeced by the top 1% of this country! Nevermind we, even our poorest, are in the top 0.1% of the world!
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)
mucifer
(23,576 posts)meat egg and dairy consumption which also leads to a lot of climate change. It costs a lot of energy to raise animals for food because they require so much grains, or worse yet grass, for them to grow to be big enough to eat. It is much more energy and water efficient to eat the plants directly.
I'm not just making this up . This is coming from recommendations from the UN climate report:
As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.
It says: "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."
Professor Edgar Hertwich, the lead author of the report, said: "Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
7962
(11,841 posts)Ive been called 'right wing" simply because I advocated ridding the disability system of cheaters. To some, that meant I wanted to do away with the entire system.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)It's like one side of an equation.
Do I earn more than someone living in Borneo? WTH? The word "rich" is a loaded word.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Which does take into account costs of living.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)place to live in the states, is not in the top 20% globally, unless I get to spend my 7 thou on housing in east fuckistan or somewhere similar. maybe in congo I'd be in the top 20% and could house myself. I certainly wouldn't be in Europe, the middle east, the far east, most of latin America.
Africa is the only place left I might have a chance to survive.
JI7
(89,279 posts)of them make either. there are more people within each home compared to the US.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)(As you no doubt know.)
Even single-family dwellings, in the US nuclear family sense, are quite rare.
RandiFan1290
(6,256 posts)It's part of the TPP excuse tour
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Once I finish my DBA that should change.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)mnhtnbb
(31,408 posts)when my husband semi-retired. He did go back to working half a day
at a clinic in 2014 so I guess we'll go back up again for 2014.
Still, that's pretty amazing.
RandiFan1290
(6,256 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'll be mailing you the bill for the therapy it'll take to stop me seeing those eyes in my nightmares.
Marr
(20,317 posts)This is a standard line used by people who push things like the TPP and NAFTA.
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)They say by wealth is a more accurate measure, but it still really doesn't give you an accurate picture. I'm actually insolvent when you consider all of my debt, which the site does not do. That means that I have a net worth of less than zero.
But I do have a better lifestyle than much of the world, and I am getting the debt under control. I'm sure about 80% of the planet's population would take my debt if they could live like I do.
JustAnotherGen
(31,937 posts)I'd like to see a charitable donations including time donated test. I'd bet that even though the Kochs and Devos families have much more than I do - my husband and I are far "wealthier" than they are.
I think we are in the - There but for the grace of selecting the right womb, and the right set of life circumstances and opportunity go I. . . Wealth/Inome bracket.
KG
(28,753 posts)the intertubes are full of condescending mofos that think others should take a pay cut.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)AND, it's often left unsaid, our families should also accept lower and lower standards of living.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm disabled, live on benefits (welfare).
zazen
(2,978 posts)I appreciate the direction and sentiment of the exercise in fostering gratitude (because student loans kept me fed and gave me great healthcare for a few years), but its focus on redistribution by inducing guilt/charity in the poorest (and indebted) first world individuals rather than on redistribution through tax parity and ending corporate welfare is problematic.
Counting debt as income shifts responsibility to indentured graduates who can not only subtract from their debt but get to call their debt "wealth." Pretty Orwellian.
So this is how non-profits like Care International are going after low-income prospects who since 2008 have increasingly said sorry, I can't give because I'm unemployed or have 120k in student debt or I'm on welfare.
Not sure I appreciate this strategy, though again, reminders to be grateful to have shelter, food, heat, clean water, and relative safety (if you're white) are always helpful, I guess.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Instead of, for example, Sweden and France's poor.
Thanks for jumping on the libertarian false equivalency bandwagon, like some others in this thread already have.
Come to my wife's job, when she goes into cockroach-infested homes far below the poverty line in income, replete with drug and DV problems, no hope and no prospect to better themselves and tell their kids "Look on the bright side - you're in the world's top 20% of wealth!! What's that I see, a refrigerator? And a TV?? YOU'RE NOT POOR. I don't see any mud walls or bugs for breakfast! SO unappreciative of what you have!"
Poor is poor no matter where you live.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Full right wing propaganda.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)"An American poorer than 97% of Americans is richer than 98% of Indians"
How isn't it right wing propaganda when a poster who says this also regularly dismisses the economic concerns of liberals especially in the context of globalism/TPP. I could find this same argument on Free Republic. 'Our poor aren't poor they're well off blah blah blah'.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's a pretty simple fact; it doesn't have left- or right-wingedness to it.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Didn't you know?
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Has nothing to do with what's factual, and facts are only part of a logically sound comparison. It's carrying water for guys like Charles Koch, a guy who makes $34,000 every 23 minutes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/koch-brothers-commercial_n_3581017.html
Lars39
(26,117 posts)The correct comparison should be to other first world industrialized nations. And because those of us here in the US have recently been hearing the exact same right wing talking points.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The comparison I'm pointing out is the extent to which America is much, much, much richer than most of the world.
Lars39
(26,117 posts)country should be.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You don't have one without the other.
Lars39
(26,117 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Lars39
(26,117 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)The attempt here is to compare the poor of a nation that CAN do something about it's poverty (but, by and large, chooses not to) to a nation that, because of serious lack of infrastructure, industry, societal modernization & controls and governmental acumen, can do relatively little to nothing about their poverty. For example, the "We Are the World" charity relief for famine-ravaged nations mostly found it's way into the hands of Soviet-backed rebels that ran those countries.
The better comparison would be that of a Protestant Work Ethic-addicted nation that does relatively little to thwart it's poverty or lift people out of it to a nation with relative equivalence in resources that OFFERS social services and due human rights to it's citizens at birth.
It is possible to be sympathetic to the poor of America AND the poor of sub-Saharan Africa AND the poor of Belgium AND the poor of South America without making it into an opportunity to shame.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)You shame developed countries, especially the US, for "not doing enough" even when each and every person has access to clean running water, electricity, cheap food, and indeed, an expectation of employment. While many developing countries can't offer even two of those things. The US can absolutely do better, and trivially so, but it wouldn't change the overall wealth disparity between the US and developing countries.
I saw the OP as simple recognizing just how well off we are. If we can't recognize that, we're lost. It's OK to recognize even our poorest are better off than the rest, it may indeed compel us to help them. In fact, were we not exploiting those countries, they may not be as in bad of shape as they are. We get cheap labor from those countries, cheap resources, and we enjoy it. Want chocolate? Coffee? Any kind of plastic toy or product?
It's coming from developing countries with slave labor. Accept it.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)OK, I don't know whether that's just being innocently naive or willfully ignorant. Either way, one of us needs to get out more, and it's certainly not me.
Once again, do you want to tell someone in the rural south or homeless in America's worst urban areas how great they have it and how rich they are compared to someone in Jakarta? Are we really going there?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)We should all feel grateful to that we are being exploited and robbed by the 1% because people in 3rd world countries are so much poorer than we are.
This complacency will end up making it worse for ALL of us. The relatively wealthy 1st world workers AND the impoverished in the 3rd world as the race to the bottom continues.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Beyond words. How the fuck is pointing out US development and living standard and income "downgrading our expectations"? That's just silly.
Lars39
(26,117 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)America's poor never had it so good - just ask FOX news.
Lars39
(26,117 posts)It's akin to the "eat your vegetables, there's children starving in China", and "in my day we walked 50 miles up hill in blizzards" invalidating crap.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)B happened, and is worse than A.
Therefore A is justified.
This is the most blatantly fallacious form of the argument and is a hindsight version of the "not as bad as" argument that states past actions can legitimise current actions. The existence of a worse atrocity in the past, however, does not actually justify anything it merely points out that there have been similar things in the past. People who use this as a justification may be well aware that it's logically fallacious, and use it purely as rhetoric, or as a distraction.
Holocaust deniers and apologists use this quite frequently: "the Holocaust was bad, but Stalin killed more" is technically true, but this ignores the Axis' willingness to encourage World War II and is irrelevant if discussing murders carried out under Hitler's regime. Similarly "Internet censorship in the US isn't as bad as internet censorship in China" is true, but not relevant to discussing the erosion of free speech in a country that holds free speech to be an important part of human rights. Good and evil may be on a sliding scale, but the baseline of what makes something wrong shouldn't be set at the worst possible atrocity!
It is also used occasionally as a particularly underhanded emotional appeal, in an attempt to guilt trip someone, in order to have them stop voicing a complaint. For example: 'Feminists of the past had it WAY harder than modern feminists, so modern feminists should shut up!!'
Wingnuts (Stuart Varney on Faux, specifically) use this "not as bad as" canard to denigrate America's poor, admonishing them if they have TVs and Refrigerators, as if an appliance is some indicator of great wealth. They figure "Weeeeeellll, if you can buy this TV, then why should my hard-earned tax dollars go to feed your nine crack babies???"
The real problem is that they can't eat healthy, can't afford to live in a safe area, often can't afford a roof, can't afford any substantial medical problems and have no prospects to better themselves.
It's cold comfort to tell them "well at least you aren't getting raped in a favela or eating beetles!"
What good does that do?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)(Caveat: I don't know the guy at all; just going off what you're saying.)
First off, very few poor people own their own refrigerators (their landlords own them). Manufactured goods are relatively easy to come by in the US; the distinction between the rich and the poor is mostly in services they can afford.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)In the developed world.
You must have forgotten about eastern Europe.
Anyone can pick and chose to make some pathetic point.
You can't get around the absolute fact of US dominance and development compared to the rest of the world. You can pretend, make up false stats, dance around the issue, but it's a fact that the US is far ahead even at its poorest than pretty much the rest of the world. It's why 1+ million people immigrate here a year. They're not coming here to be more impoverished, that would be absurd.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)By wealth, I'm in the top 67.60% richest people in the world.
That makes me the 3,041,970,948th richest person on earth.
I'm in the top 9.52% richest people in the world by income.
That makes me the 571,311,958th richest person on earth by income.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)FBaggins
(26,775 posts)About 4.5% of the world population lives in the US.
So let's take an imagined income of $100k. The calculator claims that puts you in the richest .08% on the planet (roughly 5 millionth richest). Even if you assume that the poorest American makes more than the richest person anywhere else in the world (nonsense of course), that puts you at about the 1.75% highest in the US.
But that isn't the case. $100k/year "only" puts you in the top 6% or so of US individuals (top 25% of households).
Another interesting point. Every time I've compared my income/wealth to the US distribution in the past, I come out much higher on total wealth than on income (due to decades of being savings/investment prone and debt averse)... yet this calculator shows just the opposite (substantially so).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Or at least it was 2 years ago.
And half of the people in the world who make that much live in the US.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)They claim that it's $32,500 now
Even assuming individual income rather than household, that would mean that there are only 70 Million people in the world with incomes over $34k. There are more than that in just the US and Europe (almost just in the US).
We have 155 Million workers in the US. What's the median income?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Which isn't the case.
They're dividing household income by household size, so it includes children. It would be more accurate to say "half of people who live in a household with income greater than $34k * household size live in the US"
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)The household number for the US is closer to 50k (with median per-capita at about $15,500).
But you're dodging the simple math. If the top 1% of people (not workers) makes $34k, then there are only 70 million people in the world with incomes above that level.
That simply isn't even close to true. The reason that I asked for median income among workers in the US is that it would give you an idea of about what 70 million people here earn. Then keep in mind that Europe is pretty rich too and they have twice our population... then we could start talking about Japan... Australia... Canada... etc.etc.etc.
"half of people who live in a household with income greater than $34k * household size live in the US"
That's an entirely different statement... and also would be untrue.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You're vastly underestimating household sizes globally.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)We're talking personal income - which artificially makes a family of four with one breadwinner look like one is in the top and the other three are destitute - but that's the measure that they're using.
Once again... do the math.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They're taking every member of every household in the world and giving them one Xth of the household income for household size X.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)If that's the distinction they're making, they're outright lying... it isn't "sleight of hand".
They're taking every member of every household in the world and giving them one Xth of the household income for household size X.
Then why don't they ask you to take the income you report and divide by the number of people in your household?
On edit - Ok... I see the correction.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though since their purpose is to sell charitable donations, I can see why they wouldn't want to. But your initial point is quite fair, I realize now. Mea culpa!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You're right that the way it's stated is misleading
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)This is a comparison vs world income.
See http://www.gapminder.org
Even some of the poorest people in the US are better off than the richest in many countries. This observation causes one to be labeled a right wing fascist here.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)to try to shame the poor or the economic left to stop arguing against the harmful policies that the right wing (and far too many "Democrats" support.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)The fact that (in dollar terms), someone we consider "poor" has a larger income than some tribesman in a jungle... does not change the political argument.
IOW, we don't have to pretend that the fact is false in order to argue for policies that help with inequalities.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Yet they don't even reach the first level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs every day, whereas some tribes in South America, Africa and elsewhere reach the highest level of self actualization. with their community
The discussion of what constitutes wealth as purely a monetary inference is illusionary and disingenuous.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)There's a difference between dollar income and "poverty".
samsingh
(17,601 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)brooklynite
(94,792 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)There are about 150 million employed Americans alone. How are they calculating this?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, in a two earner family of five, divide the sum of the two incomes by 5.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It seems like between the US, Canada, and Europe there has got to be more than that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)I went by wealth, NOT INCOME!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I assume because I don't own a house.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)FBaggins
(26,775 posts)Just looking at US statistics over the years, I'm always much higher up in net worth than I am in income.
Yet somehow their calculation reverses the two (significantly).
I'd buy a claim that Americans in general are too likely to outspend their income and have little in the way of savings/investment... but not to that extent.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)Others have pointed out how it empowers right wing narratives, and I won't rehash that, although I will affirm it. The thing is you can't just compare U.S. dollars to other currency. You have to look at purchasing power.
For instance, $1 U.S. is worth $3.22 in Ghanan Cedi. Woohoo! I'm moving to Accra; I'll be rich! But wait... Rent prices in Accra are 161% higher than the midsize Midwestern city I live in. Here I'm paying 58% of my income in rent for a one bedroom apartment, while in Accra I'd be paying 90%! Oh, but hey, at least food costs 4% less in Accra. When there is food, anyway. So I guess I've got that going for me.
Meanwhile, if I do the same sort of comparisons for Lyon, France (about the same size as my city), I find that I'm paying a third more for rent here than I'd be paying in Lyon, same for utilities, and food's a bit of a wash with some things higher and some things lower.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)I just guessed on the value of property and assets though. I included the cars. I really don't own much else besides the house and cars. Furniture? Mostly old and inexpensive when bought new.
That is the top 3%.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I'm the 3,415,048th richest person on earth (top 0.06%).
I'm not sure I've done anything to deserve that, but being a white guy, born in America, probably didn't hurt.
That really is an eye opener. I have a family member struggling to get by on probably $20k a year and she's in the top 3.65%. $32,400 puts you in the top 1%.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Their method of calculating your position is very much skewed to make you seem more wealthy than you are-- exactly like Fox News saying people aren't poor if they have a refrigerator and a color tv.
Not surprising to see it pop up here at this time, with the TPP issue coming to a head.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)That's exactly what it it. But we should feel grateful for the crumbs the global 1% throws us regardless.
William Seger
(10,779 posts)delete_bush
(1,712 posts)and it's around $1,300 per year.
It doesn't appear they are using household income, more like per-capita (at least for income), but as you state this is off as well. And they are using a population of around 6 million, which is rather odd as this was the population circa 2000.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Unsurprising, considering the world.
djean111
(14,255 posts)The purpose of agreements like the TPP is to bring everyone DOWN to the lowest level, while the top gets richer and richer.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)compared to what many have around the world, you realize how wealthy this nation is.
Even the worst schools here have qualified teachers, multiple stocked classrooms, a cafeteria that serves food (albeit horrible quality), and bathrooms...with toilet paper. Electricity. Running water.
Fifty years ago, a child could get a good education if there was a school with good teachers, books, pencils and paper, and a chalkboard. I'm pushing sixty, and the most high tech item in my school was the overhead projector.
And the sad thing is...you could still give a child a quality education with not much more than that if he feels safe, secure, and is well fed.
We could do a lot better.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)You must be in the top .000000001 %
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)So its even higher than you think
Recursion
(56,582 posts)India has less income inequality than the US or the world average (though a broader spread than the US).
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)tenderfoot
(8,438 posts)eom
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I will rank myself to the standards of labor's activist progress in the world that I live in. I honor them and I support the goals of global labor movements to enable working people to live a living wage life. That is what I want for me and what I want for the rest of the world.
ClarkeVII
(89 posts)Care International isn't promoting RW agenda they are simply making a point about global wealth disparity. Count your lucky stars and send them a donation.
JI7
(89,279 posts)in fact as i said it means we can afford to do many things that right wingers are always claiming we can't in trying to cut programs.
but the point of this is more of just to show off poor many in the world are.
Orrex
(63,233 posts)Our student loans equal about 250% of the equity in our home, with other debt clocking in around $7,000, making my net worth somewhere well below zero.
Yet the app tells me I'm in the top 17.86% percentile? I call bullshit.
A homeless person with $10 radio and zero debts would rank higher than me, by that dubious metric.
I've seen similar websites before, and the message is always the same: "You want a living wage? Feh! 5.5 billion people would happily trade your salary for theirs, you over-privileged snob."