Hacker News Reader

Comment by JacobAldridge | Hacker News Reader

"The latest [Knight Frank report] produces the curiously precise estimate that there are 167,669 individuals in the world who are “ultrahigh net worth,” with assets exceeding $30 million."

I'm amazed at how few people sit in that strata - $30 million gets you into the Top 0.0024% of the world's population. While it's twice my (inflation-adjusted) financial goal, I still would have thought a larger number of people would be there.

Perhaps this fails to account for assets spread across a number of corporate entities?

View on HN

You identified what I call an interesting "mid-band" of wealth, so I'd like to swizzle the numbers a bit more for perspective:

$30 Million is certainly "fuck you" money. Assuming anyone with that amount has 30-60 more years to live (e.g. is 40-70 years old), that means they could spend at least $500,000 per year, or $1,369 PER DAY for the rest of their life.

That is more than my monthly rent. They can spend that per day. And, AND they don't have to work all day. They could volunteer, run propaganda campaigns, get high, research stocks, play guitar, learn Swift, paint, ANYTHING.

Well, except buy a new car every day. If you want a Lamborghini, at ~$120k, you'll still have to "save up" for 85 days! So it's not the absolutely, mind-bogglingly, helicopter-dogfight rich. And you certainly couldn't go nuts with art:

You couldn't even buy the cheapest painting on Wikipedia's "most expensive paintings" list. [0].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_painting...

Anyway, I'm glad there are less than 170,000 people who don't have to do anything at all to live.

>Anyway, I'm glad there are less than 170,000 people who don't have to do anything at all to live.

Don't have to do anything at all to live better than everyone else in the world, that is. There are a lot more who are dependent on various safety nets. We're cutting food stamps, because we think they shouldn't eat as much.

or perhaps you don't realise how privileged you are in that even $1 million is attainable.

I'm curious about what in my comment suggests I don't appreciate the fortune that was simply being born into a first world democracy? Even if we just use the ~1Bn people with that privilege, I remain surprised at Knight Frank's number.

>the fortune that was simply being born into a first world democracy

Neither necessary nor sufficient. It's easier to get that kind of money if you ware born into a small elite in a resource-rich and/or poverty stricken country.

Absolutely - alas, my 'privilege' is the first world democracy kind, as I was not fated to be born the son of a Russian oligarch on the cusp of the collapsing Soviet Union.

Which is for the best, because then I likely would have ended up supporting Chelsea in the English Premier League.

[Edit] Further to pessimizer's reply below, but responding here so the thread doesn't disintegrate. Note that the only reason I raised "first world democracy" was because Alex raised how "privileged" I am. My "privilege" is where I was born, and that was in a first world democracy.

I think I completely agree with your point that being born where I was doesn't of necessity deliver me $15M or $30M, which is why I keep putting "privilege" in air quotes.

The "first-world democracy" part has very little to do with being the 15 million dollar kind of privileged. The 15-millionaires-to-population ratio is probably similar in Britain and Kazakhstan (but probably higher in Kazakhstan.)

result of random google: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/12/countries-with-most-...

reply to edit: I'm trying to say that the privilege that makes you 15-30 million is something other than simply where you were born, not that it doesn't exist. That's why I'm not putting scare quotes around it. Being born in a kleptocracy if anything makes you more likely to have 15 million, rather than less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com