317
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Ava@piefed.blahaj.zone 64 points 1 week ago

I hate when these sorts of statistics point to "the top 10%" as the problem based on numbers like this. It's simply much less broad than that. Of all wealth, the top 0.1% holds 14.5%. The next 0.9% holds 17.3%. The bottom 50% hold only 2.5%. The top 1% of households hold 12.72x as much wealth as the bottom 50%. And, notably, the bottom 10% of households have less than $1000 in net worth. The bottom 8% of people have $0 or less.

A household which is at the 90th percentile for Net Worth has a net worth of roughly $2,000,000, including equity in their home. You get to the 95th percentile before you double that to $4M. The 90th percentile has 1000x higher net worth than someone with $2,000 to their name, which seems obscenely unfair when described in that way. However, a net worth of $2,000,000 would provide a retiree a mostly-safe withdrawal rate (4% or $80,000) of around the median income of ~$84,000. (This doesn't actually check out since it includes equity in the home, but as a simplification.) Retirees have access to social security and tax-advantaged accounts and the like, but someone who ends up with a net worth of $2M could live only a median lifestyle without working.

Is a net worth of $2,000,000 a very large number and a large chunk of wealth? Of course it is. But it's not like, obscene wealth. If I gave a random American $2M it would change their lives profoundly, but the people who have a net worth of $2M aren't the ones who are ruining our lives. They're just not.

The top 0.1% hold 14.5% of the wealth. The top 1% hold 31.8%. The bottom 10% hold less than 0%. That's the ball game.

Disclaimer: I have not rigorously cited my sources, nor verified all my figuring. However, most of this is pulled from the Fed data linked in the article. Other stuff is pulled from sources which cite the same, though I've not run a rigorous analysis of the maths. My work should not be cited as correct, it is intended to be illustrative. That said, I'll happily remedy any errors that others might notice!

[-] rayyy@piefed.social 12 points 1 week ago

a net worth of $2,000,000 would provide a retiree a mostly-safe withdrawal rate (4% or $80,000) of around the median income of ~$84,000.

If inflation and dollar devaluation eats away faster than investment growth they may find themselves just scraping by.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

The 'mostly safe 4% rule' actually includes inflation. It's based on the assumption that assets are invested in a mix of broad stock market and treasury bonds, and allows the retireee to increase their annual spending by inflation, It usually results in the retiree dying with substantially more wealth (inflation adjusted) than they started out with. The stock market is a natural inflation hedge and, in this day of multinational conglomerates, a currency hedge.

[-] Ava@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

For those curious as to additional reading, the origin of the 4% rule comes from the Trinity Study, a finance research project from the late 90s.

Not to be confused with the Trinity Test, which occurred in the 40s and had very little to do with finance.

[-] OpenStars@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

(1) clickbait title gonna clickbait

(2) They are not aiming to convey facts - which we've known for several decades, like the wealthy have all of the um, ah, wealth - and rather to convey an emotional punchline. So just one sentence phrase, without any compound portions.

(3) I do not know about this source in particular but in general all news media is owned by oligarchs, and presumably the author felt that a story talking about the top 0.1% would not be published, so they misrepresented the situation in order to make it more tolerable. This serves the oligarchy by redirecting anger away from billionaires that you will never see, to the local millionaires in , or even to Taylor Swift that you will see in entertainment. Meanwhile, people like The Musk still control the outcome of the Russian vs. Ukrainian genocidal war... but sure, show a picture of Taylor Swift as if that is remotely comparable as the literal "face of this issue".

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It’s actually fucked up that Taylor Swift is in the thumbnail. She sucks a lot but compared to other similarly leveled billionaires like Oprah she’s a drop in the bucket for damage done. Again fuck her but I’d spare her if it meant Bezos got the guillotine

[-] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

The percentage of sociopaths involved with creating a society should never be greater than zero.

Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

[-] diabetic_porcupine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Counts fingers… one … two… three… HEY! That guy has like 3 dollars!

[-] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

How is this figure over time?

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

From @ava@piefed.blahaj.zone source, the 10%/90% ratio went from 1.55 in 1989 to 2.14 in 2025.

Consistent with their criticism of choosing the top 10% vs the top 1-or-fewer %, the 1%/99% ratio went from 30% to 46%. The 1%/90% ratio went from 58% to 99, and the (10-1)%/90% from 97% to 114%.

ed: Initially did this without noticing that the default view of the Fed data only showed 2010-2025. Over that range, the (10-1)% have actually lost wealth to the 1%. Over the 1989-2025 window, the (10-1)% have gained, but not nearly the pace of the 1%

[-] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago
[-] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

But but they Create Jobs!

this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
317 points (100.0% liked)

Work Reform

15619 readers
369 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS