Are You Top 1% ?

[YoungSaver]

No

 

[joeea]

Am I in the 1%? You can learn a lot from Caddy Shack.

Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty: By height.

Well I'm in the global 1%.
So I got that goin' for me
which is nice.

 

[Skyward1]

Keep in mind that 50% of the people on this planet don't own a pair of shoes.

Source?

 

[6miths]

Keep in mind that 50% of the people on this planet don't own a pair of shoes.

Source?

+1

 

[RobLJ]

Saw the headline, was going to type no, then I realized it was Worldwide, and

I'm not in the US elite 1% but I have always felt pretty much the luckiest person alive since I was 13. My fraternal twin inherited a very cruel myclonic disease with onset in early puberty, so to varying degrees, everything that has happened to me feels pretty much like luck, and unfair at that. I'm sure I worked hard and mumble, mumble, mumble.....

I'm not taking a vow of poverty, but realistically, I was and am a lucky SOB. As I suspect most of us are (I'm not going to presume to opine on any of the 98% or 1% exceptions here on the blog and YMMV).

But I'm pretty damn sure I'm a lucky sonofabitch and you can't gainsay me on that piece of comfort.

+1

 

[RobLJ]

To be on topic, I could have substituted rich for lucky, but that wouldn't be completely on topic but I think the two to some degree overlap (I'm not living on a yacht, however, so the analogy is only a bit rough).

 

[kcowan]

Large areas of Alaska have poor tap water, due to deep well water being rich in iron and manganese. It is yellowish or cloudy, and often has a sulfurous smell (rotten egg) from sulfur. It may be drinkable, but not too appetizing. And even for washing clothes, it may turn cotton yellow.

I don't think a home filtering or water treatment system would cost Alaskans $1K/month. I could be wrong.

We were on a well and the filter had to be replaced every third day. So pretty expensive. We had the water tested and removed the filter, using bottled water instead.

 

[scrabbler1]

Am I in the 1%? You can learn a lot from Caddy Shack.

Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty: By height.

"Thank you very little!"

 

[Totoro]

What if the richest people gave all their money to all the "poor" people. Wild guess, you'd have a bunch of "poor" people with a bunch of news stuff who would be poor again the next month.

If you want to know: plenty of studies out there who examine the effects of cash grants. Actual experiments, although spoiler alert: they don't line up with your wild guess

The "rich" guy would no longer employ anyone, so you might actually end up with more poor people.

Depends on the type of "rich" guy - some hardly employ anyone to begin with. Others deploy employment with a net negative effect on other employment. In effect, we're talking about controlling where resources get deployed. Some wealthy people are really good at it, others not so much. In some cases it's a wash: imagine 1 person holding 1% of a big company or 10 persons holding 0.1% - who's to say what effect that has on how the company is run?

Concentration of wealth though is at a society level negatively correlated with many well being indicators. YMMV indeed.

 

[urn2bfree]

I have often thought of this concept when the 1% (or whatever fashionable word or phrase is being used to describe the "rich" - whatever that is.) "What if?" What if the richest people gave all their money to all the "poor" people. Wild guess, you'd have a bunch of "poor" people with a bunch of news stuff who would be poor again the next month. The "rich" guy would no longer employ anyone, so you might actually end up with more poor people. I know it's a thought experiment since most rich folks never give all their money away. I think this would make an excellent graduate level thesis in an economics school but YMMV.

But (and I am NOT advocating such a redistribution)- think further-
Almost every penny of the "poor" people's share would have been spent consuming something... Consumption that otherwise was NOT going to happen. The effect of an uptick in consumption would be a rise in demand- a rise in prices- more investment into meeting the demand- more jobs, and more profits for those able to meet that demand.

An extra $2500 to a "poor" person immediately will be spent.
An extra $? to a "rich" person generates $2500 more in spending.
I don't know the number but my guess is at least double, maybe more.

 

[NW-Bound]

In contrast with royal families in the old days who hoarded their wealth in the form of gold and rare stones, billlionaires now have most of their assets in capital investments, mainly shares of public companies.

If we confiscated Buffett's shares of Berkshire Hathaway and distributed out for the public to sell to spend, who is going to buy these shares? The Chinese, and then, we will be all working for them as they now own all our production assets?

 

[mickeyd]

top 1% world wide

I can believe it. There are billions of very poor folks in this world, though few of them ever post on this site or have much of a retirement account.

 

[RISP]

This tool does it all:
Global Rich List

"Your monthly income could pay the monthly salaries of 291 doctors in Azerbaijan."

That cannot be true. According to this source, even the national minimum wage is 105 $/month.

 

[NW-Bound]

Here is a great website that gives a glimpse into the economic life of families across the globe. https://www.gapminder.org/dollar-street/matrix

Here's a French family with financial info that causes me to scratch my head.

The Bourguinat family lives in Paris, France. Anne is 40 years old and is a psychologist. She lives with her husband and 2 kids. Together the family works for 85 hours/week and earns around 3 000 Euros per month, which is approximately 3 764 USD/month (adjusted to purchasing power parity). The family lives in a rented two-bedroom house and pays 2100 Euros (2616 USD) per month in rent... The Bourguinat family purchases all their food supplies from the local market and spends around 30% of their income on it...

The 3000 EUR/month is surprisingly low with both of the couple working. And it must be after-tax. Still, they do not have a whole lot left after rent, and food.

Oh boy. I have been living a really sheltered life.

See: https://www.gapminder.org/dollar-street/family?place=54afd1eabe3215e776813dd3.

 

[Totoro]

3.000 EUR/month for two full time workers doesn't make sense in Paris. Should be 5.000 or so, unless one of them is basically salary-less in a startup.

 

[braumeister]

I'm sure there is a typo in that article.

70% of income for rent, 30% for food, and they're saving to buy a house.

 

[ESRwannabe]

Says according to Credit Suisse Research to make the top 1% world wide, you need net worth north of $871,320.

Yes, I am. My investment money + the current value of my pension is over one million.

 

[ESRwannabe]

I guess if you live in San Francisco or New York, you need $3M-$5M at least. In the Southern State, you can retire fine with that $875,000.

If you retire in the Philippines or Thailand, you're gonna live like a king with $875,000 US. But better to live in cities outside of Manila and Bangkok.

I've also been to Kathmandu, Nepal, and you can live even cheaper. Hotel was $7-$8 a day and food was like $1 a day. But that was years ago.

I have a friend that lives and works in Bangkok and follow a lot of youtubers that live in Chiang Mai. Seems like it would be a very nice place to live especially once I am 50+ and could get a retirement visa. I'd probably want to be near a beach for cooler weather. Maybe Phuket, near Patong Beach.

I'm 42 and have around $500k in investments and a pension worth over $500k. I could probably retire there if I wanted to.