Writing for the outlet, Andrew Lisa explained that Americans hold a combined $160.35 trillion in wealth. To the average person, that sounds like quite the payday, but someone in the top 1% probably wouldn’t see it that way. According to Lisa, “The bottom 50% of the country shares less than 3% of that enormous pie, while the most fortunate 10% gorge on nearly all of it.”
There are approximately 340.11 million people in the U.S. If they all shared that $160.35 trillion, each person would come away with $471,465. Not only is that more than the average person could even imagine, but it only compounds when you consider how it would add up for families. For example, a couple would hold a combined $942,930, and a family of four would have $1.89 million. Because, of course, in an ideal world, wealth would be distributed evenly regardless of age.
That’s (roughly speaking) owning your own home w/ no mortgage. I can imagine quite a bit more than not paying rent.
I’d argue if all houses were redistributed to their rightful owners the price of all housing would go down - but that’s outside of this thought experiment I guess.
Remember though that that’s ~500k per person. So every kid, every SO, every parent. I think on average it would equate to more than just getting to own your home, even if we ignored the likely change in wealth valuations that would follow.
Okay, so, a house in California with no mortgage.
I’m not saying this would be a bad thing, just that this isn’t “more than most people could imagine” kind of wealth. Maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetimes… but imagine?
Ask any 10-year-old what they’d do with $1M and somewhere between their personal butler, building a rocket ship and bringing dinosaurs back you will find the limits of human imagination quickly outpace the confines of $1M.
Sure, I guess you’re arguing semantics in which case have at it. Yes, people can imagine a lot more than what 1M would buy. Yes, most people won’t realistically earn 1M in their lifetime. Sure, the article had at least a single line that should be reworded.
The median lifetime earnings for all workers in the US are approximately $1.7 million.
Would you like me to change the number in my reply to 2M? Again, this feels like semantics - although to your credit at least this is something worth correcting. It’s good to recalibrate statistics, “US people make more than a million dollars over their lifetime”.
But it doesn’t change the fact that this article brings up a useful thought experiment, the top reply in this chain added nothing of value to that conversation which I think can be destructive, and I was attempting to point that out in the hopes of improving comment culture on Lemmy.
I don’t care what you do but you said the above, not the person you were replying to. That’s why I replied to you, not them.
Your point is equally valid without incorrect information in it. You seem very defensive about being fact checked; I figured I’d save anyone else who was curious the 5 seconds it took me to check your figure.
^ The person I responded to said “maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetime.” And then referenced $1M. I was simply anchoring to their value colloquially like you would in casual conversation.
I’m not trying to come off as defensive, I apologize. I responded to a comment that felt like it laser focused on one sentence within the article, only to be responded to by you with again what felt like a laser focused comment about one sentence. You weren’t like “by the way, the median lifetime earnings of an American is badadadada. [Insert your thoughts on my comment], but I just wanted to correct your quoted value.” Which would have made your comment’s point more clear to me, you just dropped a random correction that wasn’t super relevant to the point I was trying to make or even the point of this thread.
I praised you for correcting that value in the thing you responded to.
Again, I apologize for coming off as defensive that was not my intention. I appreciate the calibration of casual figures, that’s good for everyone (and something I particularly appreciate).
Chico, Fresno and Burbank. Not in California, even.
That’s very location dependent.
Okay… Your point?
Say it’s a upscale mobile home in Podunk for $100k. That leaves you with $375k. Can you imagine (per the article) other ways to spend your $375k?
A 2026 Ferrari 896 is $350k. Can you imagine driving a Ferrari every day? Sure it’s a dumb way to spend your money, but surely your imagination is capable of considering it.
You can get a lakefront home in the Ozarks for $325k. Can you imagine vacationing from Podunk to your second home in the Ozarks? Sure it’s hot and sticky most of the year, and too cold the remainder, but can you imagine it?
A horse costs ~$2k/month to care for. Can you imagine having a couple of horses for like 6-7 years then realizing you’re out of money and selling them to the glue factory?
My point is not that anyone needs any of these things, but I hope that “most people” can imagine quite a bit more than simple having $500k per capita.
https://www.zillow.com/burbank-ca/
https://www.zillow.com/fresno-ca/
https://www.zillow.com/chico-ca/
Bit of a price difference was my point.
I think different people with differing experiences and income and exposure have differing abilities.