For clarity, the scale in difference is the same between a terabyte and a gigabyte as compared to a billion and a million (a factor of 1000). But a gigabyte is not a million bytes and a terabyte is not a billion bytes Kilo = thousand Mega = million Giga = billion Tera = trillion
I think people can’t really comprehend this because a long time ago a million was a lot of money. Like, if you had a million in your bank account you were a rich person. Nowadays that means you are just an average person with a little extra money. Heck, in places like San Francisco having a million means you are just scraping by.
That’s… not accurate. The average American family has $62.5k in total across savings, checking, prepaid cards, money market accounts and call deposit accounts. That’s more than an order of magnitude under $1 million. Those households with $1 million dollars in assets (which also includes investments and homes/property) are in the 87th percentile. At $2 million in assets, they’re already in the 95th percentile. You’re not wrong that a million dollar net worth is not what it used to be, but it is still far far far above average.
The bay area/San Francisco does require an inordinate amount of money to be financially comfortable, but that is an outlier, not the norm. Even other major metropolitan areas like Houston don’t require even half as much money for the same financial comfort. In non-urban areas a million dollar net worth would make you among the wealthiest in the area. The context of the environment, house prices and local cost of living play a major factor in one’s relative wealth in a given area. The inequality of those factors in different parts of the country is as great as the wealth inequality in America in general.
For real. Once you are a billionaire, with even the most basic investments, you have to try REAL hard to become broke again. Spare money begets money. Spare dragon hoards begets dragon hoards. Any bitch baby billionaire whining about taxes can kiss every single asshole of single working parents, people struggling to cover student loan debts, people who perpetually rent because they can’t afford a home with a lower mortgage payment than there rent is, and every person who got ill and lost there job and home as a result. They don’t need more dragon hoards. They’ll be just fine.
This is one of the best ways I’ve seen the difference represented. Quick and simple to understand. Way easier than a visual of grains of sand or an infographic, etc
A bank account with one million dollars can be completely wiped at any time. This could happen by American healthcare cost due to illness or an accident, or a lawsuit from something like a handyman slipping on your property. A billion dollars wouldn’t even feel it.
By some measures, Musk’s decisions managing Twitter/X should earn him one million lifetimes of homelessness.
I know no one personally who would remain secure after losing billions of dollars, yet I keep hearing that owners take all the risks and workers are always protected from hardship.
With all the layoffs we see, that is fucking bullshit. The workers get shafted even when they are doing a good job because of dumb fucks c-suite gambling the company on bullshit technology, or simple cutting costs for the shareholders.
I have a theory about this: We group money in magnitudes of tens up to a million but then jump up from 10x to 1,000x:
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
1,000,000,000
That’s a huge increase but our minds like patterns so we instinctively feel that a billion must be about 10x a million and not the 1,000x it really is, thus leading to huge inaccuracies.
Much of our perception is logarithmic, which is predictable, since patterns occur from proportion of quantities. Absolute quantities are meaningless in themselves. Even ten dollars as a quantity is meaningless except through prior experience understanding the value of a single dollar. Every value except the smallest is tenfold greater than some other value of at least some consequence.
I don’t really understand your initial assumption. What if someone has 10 million dollars? Would you say he has 0.01 billion?
I think that your theory has some merit, but I believe it’s more apparent when we describe the people who own the money, as opposed to the money itself: A millionaire will stay a (multi)millionaire until they become a billionaire.
I think the idea is that we still think of someone who has >1 million but <1 billion as having some number of millions of dollars, rather than subdividing “millions” into “millions,” “tens of millions,” and “hundreds of millions.” Of course we do subdivide that when we’re being particular about how incredibly rich some actor is or something, but generally they all fall on the same order of magnitude in our minds.
That’s my point. We (those of us that aren’t at least millionaires) don’t really differentiate in society between someone that has a million dollars and someone that has 10 million dollars; they’re both stuck in the “millionaires” tier.
So say you are making $50,000 a year, well it’s easy to see how you or someone like you could (theoretically) get to $100,000; that’s just the next tier up. And then it’s easy to imagine someone going from $100,000 to a million because that’s the next tier up again. But once you get there, people don’t tend to think of ten million as a tier and usually not a hundred million either. The next tier in our zeitgeist after million is billion.
So people tend to think of billion being kind of the same as going from $100,000 to $1,000,000. Hence the common disconnect about just how much more money a billionaire has than the common man.
I like to think of $1 billion in terms of how much money you need to spend. Let’s say you’re given $1 billion at birth, never earn another cent in your life, and live for exactly 75 years. To spend all of that money, you’d need to spend $36,500 per day, every day, for your entire life. Even then, you’d have nearly a million dollars left to pass down to your children.
If you only spent 36,500 a day, you'd probably die far far richer (like, 10s of billions) than you were born assuming you have it invested. You could spend more like 100k a day (adjusting up for inflation) and you'd probably almost certainly die a billionaire.
It feels elusive how anyone could spend so much, but controlling the content of mass media has been of great service for the interests of the Kochs and the Wilkses.
You are probably not vastly different from a millionaire, just someone with less pomp and perhaps pretentiousness than some millionaires may have.
You may even know someone who secretly holds such wealth but feels too embarrassed to make it known.
A billionaire is someone who has the social role of controlling a vast section of society, through private ownership of resources and assets that are needed by others for use.
1 million dollars in net worth is achievable with investments early in life in a 401(k) or other tax deferred retirement fund. ~$300/month starting at age 20 gets you to $1,000,000 which is about 10% of the income of someone making $40k/year. That’s not completely out of reach.
It would take you a lifetime of saving 100% of that ($1,000,000 initial investment + $40k/year), a 10% interest rate (which is ridiculous), and daily compounding to reach $1bil. That is the difference between $1mil and $1bil.
No it absolutely is not achievable for a large portion of the middle class. That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Most people don’t even know how to invest their money early in life and are unlikely to be offered a 401(k) when they’re young either. $300 a month at age 20? How many 20-year-olds could afford to invest $300 a month even if they’re being paid a middle class wage?
Do you know how expensive rent and food are now? This sounds amazingly tone deaf.
cnbc.com/…/middle-class-income-in-major-us-cities… maybe you’re defining the middle class differently than I am. $300/month is 10% of the low end of that income level. 10% of total income is a generally considered a good target for retirement savings.
Again- how many 20-year-olds have $300 a month to invest? How many middle class people in 2023 have 10% of their income to spare? It may be a good target. That doesn’t make it achievable when 62% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. They don’t have 10%. They don’t have 1%.
As far as any spare income I have? It goes to paying down medical debt.
Yeah it’s unlikely. Saving 1-10% assumes you’re making a livable amount of money with a bit extra, versus living paycheck to paycheck even after cutting all but the most vital expenses. (Ed- and not in significant debt)
Things were a lot different when I was in my 20s compared to now. A single job at an hourly wage used to actually be almost doable.
How many 20-year-olds could afford to invest $300 a month even if they’re being paid a middle class wage?
If you're making median income outside places like LA/NYC/SF and don't have children, it should be pretty affordable.
The place I work at doesn't offer a 401k either (technically I'm self-employed/contract worker, so I do offer myself a 401k), but even if it doesn't and you're not self-employed, IRAs have a $6500/year limit and that's something you just open yourself. And you can just open a brokerage account if you want more. Unfortunately, most people don't know these kinds of things, especially not at 20yo. There's definitely a education gap, which is a serious problem. And few people in their early 20s make the median wage and even if they are making that much, many are still buying lots of basic durable goods like furniture and kitchenware. So using 20 as a starting point is probably a little too optimistic...
If you’re making median income outside places like LA/NYC/SF and don’t have children, it should be pretty affordable.
Did you ignore the fact that a large majority of Americans don’t have any money to invest because they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck? Do you think they all live in those sorts of cities? Wages have been stagnant for decades now. Housing prices, rent and food prices are through the roof everywhere in the country, as is the (always) variable-rate APR on things like car loans. American household debt is $16.9 trillion.
Most people simply do not have money to save or invest. They’re not getting paid enough, essentials are too expensive, and they’re drowning in debt.
I think we should focus on raising the floor vs the ceiling. We should be taxing those who can afford it and using that revenue to help those that need it most. If that means someone like myself has to work a few more taxes to achieve my retirement goal, so be it, but I can’t bring up the low income people of this country on my own. The rich need to pay their fair share, and right now they aren’t and they’re getting tax breaks from Republicans.
Sure. Much of your observations speaks to the more conceptual differences between the millionaire and billionaire with respect to role in society. Workers generate plenty of wealth, more than enough for all to live well.
Billionaires generate no wealth, only hoard the wealth generated by workers.
