Are you in the 9.9%?

[frorider]

In between the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent is a group that has been doing just fine. It has held on to its share of a growing pie decade after decade. And as a group, it owns substantially more wealth than do the other two combined. In the tale of three classes (see Figure 1), it is represented by the gold line floating high and steady while the other two duke it out. You’ll find the new aristocracy there. We are the 9.9 percent.

As of 2016, it took $1.2 million in net worth to make it into the 9.9 percent; $2.4 million to reach the group’s median

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/559130/

[iceman]

Where does the 9.9 stop and .1 start? Asking for a friend.

[Meadow Skipper]

Does net worth include a paid-off home? If so, bow to me, I'm fucking aristocracy.

[Mazderati]

Does net worth include a paid-off home? If so, bow to me, I'm fucking aristocracy.

Yes, m'lord.

[El Chupacabra]

I'm fucking aristocracy.

Whatever floats your boat...

[KQ]

Whatever floats your boat...

Crickey she looks like her mum in that pic.

But I think you got it wrong... the new face of royalty:

[reckless toboggan]

I wonder how many generations of Americans will go bankrupt from health issues, will work well and hard and leave their children in a worse economic state than themselves, will have to drink contaminated water, and will give more tax breaks to rich people they'll never associate with, before they realise that most of the people in over-regulated, over-taxed, hell-hole combat-zone of freedom-hating, socialist-communist countries in Western Europe are actually living the 'American' dream.

[Benny Profane]

Raises hand. And I don't even own a home. Lucky me.

[t-the-east]

Rad

[iceman]

I wonder how many generations of Americans will go bankrupt from health issues, will work well and hard and leave their children in a worse economic state than themselves, will have to drink contaminated water, and will give more tax breaks to rich people they'll never associate with, before they realise that most of the people in that socialist-communist, freedom-hating, over-regulated, over-taxed, hell-hole, combat-zone of Western Europe are actually living the 'American' dream.

42.

[GeezerSteve]

Yeah, we're in the club. The Atlantic has been doing fine work. Interesting article. But net worth is a stupid measure of where to draw the line. A couple with a $1.5 million net worth in San Francisco or Manhattan aint in the same club as a couple with a net worth of $1.5 million in Kansas City MO or Elko NV.

[Mazderati]

A couple with a $1.5 million net worth in San Francisco or Manhattan aint in the same club as a couple with a net worth of $1.5 million in Kansas City MO or Elko NV.

Why not?

[mud]

Does net worth include a paid-off home? If so, bow to me, I'm fucking aristocracy.

Trailers don't count.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah, we're in the club. The Atlantic has been doing fine work. Interesting article. But net worth is a stupid measure of where to draw the line. A couple with a $1.5 million net worth in San Francisco or Manhattan aint in the same club as a couple with a net worth of $1.5 million in Kansas City MO or Elko NV.

You're confusing net worth and income.

[reckless toboggan]

Yeah, we're in the club. The Atlantic has been doing fine work. Interesting article. But net worth is a stupid measure of where to draw the line. A couple with a $1.5 million net worth in San Francisco or Manhattan aint in the same club as a couple with a net worth of $1.5 million in Kansas City MO or Elko NV.

Partly agree.

They do mention the numbers for net worth, and what you said certainly applies regionally, in terms of standard of living for a given net worth, and in terms of political influence/access in terms of net worth.

However, they are taking the numbers over time, and they are also trying to frame those simple numbers in terms of economic mobility, and who is taking who's slice of the pie.

IMHO, the net worth is to simplify a complex issue, and they spend the other 95% percent of the article trying to explain the context of that simplification, so that a non-dentist, 9.9%-er somewhere might understand.

[dtown]

Yeah, we're in the club. The Atlantic has been doing fine work. Interesting article. But net worth is a stupid measure of where to draw the line. A couple with a $1.5 million net worth in San Francisco or Manhattan aint in the same club as a couple with a net worth of $1.5 million in Kansas City MO or Elko NV.

Get what you’re implying but isn’t coming across the right way...it’s like saying what weighs more a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers.

What you’re implying is that if your net worth is in the 9.9% range then it has more value in a place like KC vs SF based on cost of living index, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Game Over]

Whatever floats your boat...

Last weeks Royal Wedding SNL skit was epic.

[GeezerSteve]

You're confusing net worth and income.

Oh no I'm not

A fairly typical SF couple with a net worth of $1.5 million owns a $2.5 million house encumbered by $1.2 million of debt plus $300K in savings. A fairly typical Kansas City couple with a net worth of $1.5 million owns a $450K house with $150K debt plus $1.2 million in savings.

These threshold qualifiers would make more sense if they adjusted for home values.

What you’re implying is that if your net worth is in the 9.9% range then it has more value in a place like KC vs SF based on cost of living index, correct?

Not quite. The article is about the 9.9% having political influence and power. The KC couple in the above example has real potential power and influence -- indeed, households with $1.0 - $3.0 million net worth pretty much control state and local politics in flyover country. By contrast, the SF couple are middle class schmoos.

[Benny Profane]

Net worth is net worth. Maybe the debt is higher, but, that number don't change no matter where you live.

[Core Shot]

Net worth is net worth. Maybe the debt is higher, but, that number don't change no matter where you live.

But you omit debt service

If all goes well, they are equal-er
If SHTF then the overleveraged will falter
Or, if the market slows, their equity will never be realized from their single family McMansion

[Sirshredalot]

Yeah, we're in the club. The Atlantic has been doing fine work. Interesting article. But net worth is a stupid measure of where to draw the line. A couple with a $1.5 million net worth in San Francisco or Manhattan aint in the same club as a couple with a net worth of $1.5 million in Kansas City MO or Elko NV.

At that sort of level, net worth is also mostly just a function of age.

[reckless toboggan]

Really?

Is that why the article points out data that demonstrates the huge disparity based on race?

[Benny Profane]

But you omit debt service

If all goes well, they are equal-er
If SHTF then the overleveraged will falter
Or, if the market slows, their equity will never be realized from their single family McMansion

No. Jezuz. Net worth is net worth. It's the value of your assets minus your obligations. Period. It's simple. But, that's America for you. Fantasizing about money. If only I could fudge this.....

Sent from my SM-G900V using TGR Forums mobile app

[Sirshredalot]

Really?

Is that why the article points out data that demonstrates the huge disparity based on race?

Black folks have historically been handicapped in home equity accumulation, inheritance, and access to the highest-paying occupations.

But if you're looking at who is worth $1.2 million, the answer is pretty much old people. Old people who have accumulated home equity or savings from high-paying jobs, or whose wealthy parents have kicked the bucket. There are exceptions, of course, but there are only so many hedge fund managers and young beneficiaries of dynastic wealth out there.

[XXX-er]

You're confusing net worth and income.

I will admit to being a totally unsophisticated investor

but IME/IMO the steady income is > net worth

one can have a lowish networth but if the income keeps showing up ... yer golden