Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

#11

Post by MR4D »

Given the aging demographic trend over most of the world, both the number of and wealth of millionaires should be increasing.

What most people (and this article) tend to ignore is that a 65 year old should be richer than a 25 year old. 40 years of good savings discipline will lead to a nice number. Maybe not a million, but a large sum regardless.

Instead, this article wants to focus on the ultra-high net worth (although the article uses a $30 million cutoff instead of the usual $40 million). In the end, you have an article that is more likely to divde people than get people to say say, "wow, those older folks sure did a good job savings - I should do that so I can be like them." Instead we get the opposite.

Re: Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

#12

Post by evilduck »

Simon_says wrote: post #8
Avshalom wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still ~50 years of the average household income in the USA. Which is to say more than most Americans will make in their entire lives.

More like 17.

59k is an average household income and average households have 2.5 people, which is likely two incomes (over 60% of households).

That becomes closer to something like 33 years, which nudges close to the boundaries of most people's entire working life.

edit: national average wage index for 2016 was 48,642, so I guess for a working individual thats about 20 years then.

Re: Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

#13

Post by debt »

Wealth concentration of this magnitude seems like an extremely inefficient allocation of capital. Dollars get things done and having them concentrated and controlled in a just a few spots seems like the worst way to apply their value. A person of this level of wealth has no problem using the wealth simply for personal gain.

The concentration of wealth seems to undermine democracy.

Democracy seems to be working out decently well, concentration of wealth seems to run counter to democratic ideals. I guess that's how it has always been in capitalism: undemocractically-selected application of larger amounts of capital.

For instance, if one of these wealthy people decides to spend on a $1BB on PR campaign to run for office and they win; they will have effectively bought the outcome of the election like any other off-the-shelf product.

This level of wealth inequality could be a national security risk.

If the level of wealth concentration gets too high, we could start seeing a new market of privately-owned paramilitary sharing the space with what was originally occupied by branches of the military.

Re: Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

#15

Post by mrguyorama »

MR4D wrote: post #11

Given the aging demographic trend over most of the world, both the number of and wealth of millionaires should be increasing. What most people (and this article) tend to ignore is that a 65 year old should be richer than a 25 year old. 40 years of good savings discipline will lead to a nice number. Maybe not a million, but a large sum regardless. Instead, this article wants to focus on the ultra-high net worth (altho…

At least in the US, those old folks definitely did not do a good job of saving. The boomer generation did not save money.

Re: Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

#16

Post by TooBrokeToBeg »

mrguyorama wrote: post #15
MR4D wrote: post #11

Given the aging demographic trend over most of the world, both the number of and wealth of millionaires should be increasing. What most people (and this article) tend to ignore is that a 65 year old should be richer than a 25 year old. 40 years of good savings discipline will lead to a nice number. Maybe not a million, but a large sum regardless. Instead, this article wants to focus on the ultra-high net worth (altho…

At least in the US, those old folks definitely did not do a good job of saving. The boomer generation did not save money.

They did invest in bonds and have massive pensions. Lack of savings hasn't prevented them from growing wealth.

Re: Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

#17

Post by mac01021 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #15
MR4D wrote: post #11

Given the aging demographic trend over most of the world, both the number of and wealth of millionaires should be increasing. What most people (and this article) tend to ignore is that a 65 year old should be richer than a 25 year old. 40 years of good savings discipline will lead to a nice number. Maybe not a million, but a large sum regardless. Instead, this article wants to focus on the ultra-high net worth (altho…

At least in the US, those old folks definitely did not do a good job of saving. The boomer generation did not save money.

The ones I know personally all did...

Much of HN likely lives in a similar bubble.

Re: Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

#18

Post by cma »

debt wrote: post #13

Wealth concentration of this magnitude seems like an extremely inefficient allocation of capital. Dollars get things done and having them concentrated and controlled in a just a few spots seems like the worst way to apply their value. A person of this level of wealth has no problem using the wealth simply for personal gain. The concentration of wealth seems to undermine democracy. Democracy seems to be working out de…

When you make the Coase Theorem account for the marginal utility of money, the whole thing falls apart.

Re: Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

#19

Post by megablooper23 »

debt wrote: post #13

Wealth concentration of this magnitude seems like an extremely inefficient allocation of capital. Dollars get things done and having them concentrated and controlled in a just a few spots seems like the worst way to apply their value. A person of this level of wealth has no problem using the wealth simply for personal gain. The concentration of wealth seems to undermine democracy. Democracy seems to be working out de…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN