this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
138 points (100.0% liked)
Phys.org
63 readers
61 users here now
Phys.org internet news portal provides the latest news on science including: Physics, Nanotechnology, Life Sciences, Space Science, Earth Science, Environment, Health and Medicine.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess it depends on how they quantify it.
Are they talking about a $ value cutoff or a % of wealth cut off?
Top 1% of $ varies by state:
https://www.fox29.com/news/salary-needed-top-1-percent-all-50-us-states
So, for here, it's $707,296.
Lowest is West Virginia at $435,302.
Or to quantify it further. If someone has $20m, but no job. Is this person in the top 1%? I think so, but it is conceivable that this person lives very frugally in order to pass that on to his children or something.
Also, I think people like to say the top 1%, when they really mean the top 0.1%. I believe the top 1% income or savings, however it is defined, is a lot lower than most think. I believe when most people refer to this colloquially, they really mean billionaires.
If you have $20m you are EASILY making 500k/year in interest/dividends/investment growth. You’d have to try pretty hard to not grow your $20m.
The point was, how is top 1% determined? Some people have high income and spend it all, others are good savers but don't have a high income. Or is it based on net worth? I realize this may sound ridiculous, but as I mentioned, I believe 1% is a lower bar than people think it is.
To me net worth makes the most sense. I do agree 1% isn’t as high as people think. When people talk about the 1% they are probably thinking more about the top 0.1% or even 0.01%.
Looking just at the states with ~330 million people that would be 3.3 million 1%ers. Tons of people who never made huge salaries, but are great at saving and investing will be in that category.
Thank you.