Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Let's try this another way:

The entire national household wealth of the United States is 83.7 trillion dollars this year, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth

This makes us the richest nation on the planet.

There are 117.5 million households in the United States, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...

That's roughly $712,340 per household. I am happy to consider anyone with that or more household wealth as rich. And anyone with that plus 2 sigma as filthy rich.

Instead, what we have is all the wealth concentrated at the very top, and it gets worse and worse every year. I am in no way suggesting any form of wealth redistribution here, but it's hard for me to consider some poor sap making borderline 6 figures in SF with less than $100K life savings "filthy rich."

Sure, by 3rd world standards they're loaded, but what does that say about the 0.01% and up?




I can see your point, but:

a) You did seem to conflate wealth with unfairness.

b) I'm unsure that a simple mean is the best criterion. The median household income is about $50,000, for example. If an individual earns about $150,000, they're in the top decile of the US. I think being in the top decile is also pretty rich.

c) If an SF developer is earning $100k, it's not even that fair to compare it to household income distribution. If they don't have a family, they don't need to support children -- unlike many households with lower income. If they do have a family, it's reasonably likely they have a high-earning partner who'll boost their household income even higher. Rich people tend to marry rich people.

(I used household income rather than household wealth here, which is a weakness compared to what you wrote. But you get the idea...)




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: