Wealth disparity

[mawilson 2,133]

Whenever you hear that the top 400 wealthiest people in this country have

more wealth than the bottom 50 percent (150 million people), you have to

remember that roughly 40 million of the bottom 50 percent have a negative

or zero net worth. The rest (American households with a positive net

worth) have less than $50,000.

Remember: net worth is the total assets minus total liabilities.

Calculate your mortgage debt, subtract your home value, add your student

loans, auto loans and credit card debt, then subtract your liquid cash.

If you get a positive number, you have more wealth than the bottom

40 million of Americans combined. You're RICH.

[^_^ 5,021]

w00t!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Whenever you hear that the top 400 wealthiest people in this country have

more wealth than the bottom 50 percent (150 million people), you have to

remember that roughly 40 million of the bottom 50 percent have a negative

or zero net worth. The rest (American households with a positive net

worth) have less than $50,000.

Remember: net worth is the total assets minus total liabilities.

Calculate your mortgage debt, subtract your home value, add your student

loans, auto loans and credit card debt, then subtract your liquid cash.

If you get a positive number, you have more wealth than the bottom

40 million of Americans combined. You're RICH.

I effin' KNEW it! What out me over the top was the stainless steel outdoor grill!

Edited March 15, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Damn I better start hating myself I guess.

You know what they say credit is slavery.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Sousuke

[JohnSmith2007 353]

So if I have positive net worth I am rich?

[Ban Hammer 13,489]

Whenever you hear that the top 400 wealthiest people in this country have

more wealth than the bottom 50 percent (150 million people), you have to

remember that roughly 40 million of the bottom 50 percent have a negative

or zero net worth. The rest (American households with a positive net

worth) have less than $50,000.

Remember: net worth is the total assets minus total liabilities.

Calculate your mortgage debt, subtract your home value, add your student

loans, auto loans and credit card debt, then subtract your liquid cash.

If you get a positive number, you have more wealth than the bottom

40 million of Americans combined. You're RICH.

given the above logic, a homeless person with a penny in his pocket has more net worth than someone owing money on a mortgage.

[mawilson 2,133]

given the above logic, a homeless person with a penny in his pocket has more net worth than someone owing money on a mortgage.

Depends on how much you owe. If you owe more than your house is worth, then yes, a homeless person with a penny in his pocket has more net worth than you.

[Ban Hammer 13,489]

Depends on how much you owe. If you owe more than your house is worth, then yes, a homeless person with a penny in his pocket has more net worth than you.

maybe it's time to quit my job and vote democrat party.

[^_^ 5,021]

maybe it's time to quit my job and vote democrat party.

Don't be silly Charles. You're not underwater on your mortgage.

[Jenn! 918]

So how many people on the bottom sum up to zero net worth? Is it the bottom 100 million? 120 million? 140 million? And who defines being rich as having nonnegative net worth? I don't understand your point.

[^_^ 5,021]

So how many people on the bottom sum up to zero net worth? Is it the bottom 100 million? 120 million? 140 million? And who defines being rich as having nonnegative net worth? I don't understand your point.

The bottom 40 m are at zero or below zero, if mawilsons information is taken at face value.

Everyone else is being defined as rich. I presume this is mawilsons definition.

If you asked me, I'd define at rich at net worth of 10 m or more.

[Jenn! 918]

The bottom 40 m are at zero or below zero, if mawilsons information is taken at face value.

Everyone else is being defined as rich. I presume this is mawilsons definition.

If you asked me, I'd define at rich at net worth of 10 m or more.

What he's saying is that the bottom 40 million, since their individual net worth is <=0, have a combined net worth of -X dollars. If you have a positive net worth, even $1, then you have more money than the bottom 40 million combined, therefore you are rich. And somehow this is supposed to make it seem not so drastic that the wealthiest 400 people have more money than the bottom 50% combined. But we don't know how much money the bottom 50% has total, at least I don't. It's some amount less than 110 million times $50K.

[Ban Hammer 13,489]

Don't be silly Charles. You're not underwater on your mortgage.

yeah but as you keep reminding me, the house is in kansas!

[웃 910]

If you asked me, I'd define at rich at net worth of 10 m or more.

That is filthy rich. Even in NYC I'd imagine...

[^_^ 5,021]

Of the bottom 150 m, 40 m have negative worth. So some number of the remaining 110 m bring total net worth up to zero. Then the net worth of whatever number remains is the net worth of the entire group.

I don't think it's all that crazy for the top 400 to exceed that number.

yeah but as you keep reminding me, the house is in kansas!

Just because it's worth less than a parking spot in manhattan doesn't mean you're underwater

That is filthy rich. Even in NYC I'd imagine...

10 m net worth? It's rich. Gets you a nice apartment in the city.

Edited March 16, 2011 by \