Always hard to interpret these bottom procentile numbers because a certain procentile has 0 wealth or negative wealth. A quick search says 25% of Americans have 0 or negative wealth. I myself have negative wealth because I recently graduated and I have student loans. A homeless guy with 0 debt and 1 dollar in his pocket therefore can be said to be wealthier than 25% of Americans, and myself. However my quality of life is very good with an above average wage. And I can be expected to start going into positive net wealth later in life as I start paying off those student loans.
I would love to see numbers in lifetime wealth generation or something similar that would take into account that a lot of people are understably at 0 or negative wealth at early points of their life. Otherwise I have a hard time interpreting these bottom procentile numbers. Makes for great headlines though!
You make the assumption that negative wealth is okay when you’re young.
I don’t agree with that.
Some say that time is wasted on the young. They have so much of it that they don’t know what to do with it. I say that wealth is wasted on old people, for the same reason.
A society should invest in young people. They spend the money back into the system and shape the future they have to live in by how they spend it. Old people do none of that. They just tuck it away, and clutch their pearls.
I’m grateful to live in a society that has welfare to pay young people to study, so they don’t start their lives in debt. I hardly used it myself, but I’m still happy to pay my taxes knowing that our society has raised the bar so that nobody is forced into negative wealth just to get their life started. Poverty is low, homelessness is low, education is high. This is the society that I want to live in and pay for.
Some would call it socialism. It’s not really, and it isn’t perfect, but whatever it is, it’s surely better than a casino where the house always wins, also known as the American Dream.
Always hard to interpret these bottom procentile numbers because a certain procentile has 0 wealth or negative wealth. A quick search says 25% of Americans have 0 or negative wealth. I myself have negative wealth because I recently graduated and I have student loans. A homeless guy with 0 debt and 1 dollar in his pocket therefore can be said to be wealthier than 25% of Americans, and myself. However my quality of life is very good with an above average wage. And I can be expected to start going into positive net wealth later in life as I start paying off those student loans.
I would love to see numbers in lifetime wealth generation or something similar that would take into account that a lot of people are understably at 0 or negative wealth at early points of their life. Otherwise I have a hard time interpreting these bottom procentile numbers. Makes for great headlines though!
You make the assumption that negative wealth is okay when you’re young.
I don’t agree with that.
Some say that time is wasted on the young. They have so much of it that they don’t know what to do with it. I say that wealth is wasted on old people, for the same reason.
A society should invest in young people. They spend the money back into the system and shape the future they have to live in by how they spend it. Old people do none of that. They just tuck it away, and clutch their pearls.
I’m grateful to live in a society that has welfare to pay young people to study, so they don’t start their lives in debt. I hardly used it myself, but I’m still happy to pay my taxes knowing that our society has raised the bar so that nobody is forced into negative wealth just to get their life started. Poverty is low, homelessness is low, education is high. This is the society that I want to live in and pay for.
Some would call it socialism. It’s not really, and it isn’t perfect, but whatever it is, it’s surely better than a casino where the house always wins, also known as the American Dream.