from Hacker News

Top% of U.S. Households Hold 15 Times More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Combined

by vparikh on 12/29/20, 6:43 PM with 37 comments

• by flubert on 12/29/20, 7:49 PM

  I wonder what the complete curve looks like. At some point I'd expect the wealth number to be zero (and then head negative). So if you had $1 to your name, you might be richer than the bottom 20% combined.

• by terse_malvolio on 12/29/20, 9:12 PM

  It's hard to read a figure like this without instinctively attaching a biased narrative value to it. Whether you see it as a positive or negative. Is it just me? Or perhaps that's the point?

• by sixQuarks on 12/29/20, 9:07 PM

  According to the 20/80 rule, in a given group, the top 20% are responsible for 80% of whatever factor you’re studying, good or bad.

  The classic example is in a sales group. The top 20% of salesmen bring in 80% of the business.

  In customer support, the top 20% of customers take up 80% of a company’s time.

  According to this article, the total wealth in this country is 112 trillion. If you applied the 20/80 rule to this figure, and then keep applying the 20/80 rule until you have 1% remaining, then the “natural” outcome should be that the top 1% control over 70 trillion in wealth. That’s twice as high as what we actually have.

• by kfrncs on 12/29/20, 7:04 PM

  and that’s on late stage capitalist feudalism periodt

• by blacksqr on 12/29/20, 7:32 PM

  "It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money" - W.C. Fields.

• by fvv on 12/29/20, 10:07 PM

  Combined bet worth are not indicator of unbalance in wealth ( i mean in quality of living and generally living easiness).. those kind of metrics are misleading when presented this way imho.. let me explain : Stock market now and meet worth to companies owner while they may benefit only marginally from those money.. If elon musk has net worth of 100b and for living use 1m\y is it different from a guy who earn 2m and use 2m\y to live ? Is musk worse for disparity of whealt ? And a man who earn 30k and use 10k to live ? Is him different from a guy who earn 10k and use 10k to live ? Yeah the first ok one may have more cash if something goes bad.. but theyr lifestyle may be the same ... I think that the difference should be calculated on what we spend not in net worth ... if I have 1 trilion$ and spend 0 and live like a homeless because I don't wond to spend those money but maybe because I don't need or can spend ..why should I been considered as society monster from those kind of statistics ?

  Net worth over certain threshold is non sense imo , someone who own a company may be calculated was total company value net worth but probably have a quote normal life and his net worth is in the market\street creating jobs, plus having a 1m earning and 1m spending i could have net worth 0 , but i would me different from who have 300$ income year

  An ultra rich doesn't abuse society until he spend his money for things useless to the society imho.. that's what should be tracked. How much wealth is wasted for a golden toilet .. not accumulated