The "what people want" is all-but-impossible to achieve. We might as well ask people which superheroes people want to exist. Ed O.
Sweden's wealth distribution is pretty close to "what people want". http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf
I think it's indicative of definitions, though. I make a pretty good salary, have been putting away toward retirement, have an "emergency" cash fund, and yet my net worth is negative because my house is upside down by almost 100k. So even though I'm ok check-to-check, I'm in the "no wealth" category, right? I think it's a relatively misleading graph, but I can understand what happens when the populace at large answers questions they know nothing about.
Why do you think it is misleading? Because you think you are better off than your wealth would indicate? barfo
Someone in their 20's and 30's with a car payment, the average US savings, and who rents a home probably has a negative net worth...without even going into credit cards and student debt. But I'm pretty sure that if you asked someone fitting those attributes about where they fall in the "wealth" category, I don't think they'd say they fall into the worst 20% and have negative wealth. Edit: It reminds me of a slogan I saw from a missionary, who probably stole it from some rabid neo-conservative: "in the US, you are part of the 99%. To the rest of the world, you are the 1%." World Bank stats back that up...80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day ($3650 a year), and 50% live on less than 2.50 a day ($912 a year).
Well, that's kind of the point of the graph. Those on the bottom of the scale *think* they are better off than they are. Which is really very interesting. barfo
After 30 years, his mortgage will be paid off. The chart doesn't reflect that. Nor does it reflect the vast amount of wealth lost by the bottom 80% from the stock market and housing bubbles. Nor does it reflect the value of social security as an annuity. Nor does it account for the govt.'s wealth, considering all the raw land it owns as well as office buildings, airports, etc.
Of course they're accurate. They're from Michael Norton at i.i.com, and they know exactly what people think!
Why should it? Actually, I think it does show the results of that, unless it is an old graph. That's a good point. Ok, I guess you could argue that we are all wealthier because we own a share of the government holdings. Does that change the relative wealth distribution shown? I guess if the government's wealth is much larger than the total private wealth, then the differences among citizens would be washed out by the government contribution to each person's wealth. barfo
It is an interesting thing to ponder... the distribution of wealth between individuals is something we're looking at, but how much is that distribution of wealth between individuals as compared to the wealth owned by the federal and state governments? I don't know, but it would definitely have some moderating effect on the distribution of wealth. Ed O.
