How rich are you on a global scale?
- Thread starter gangleri2001
- Start date
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Surely your income and country shouldn't be the only variables that affect how "rich" you are. Cost of living can vary wildly between Canadian cities. People in Toronto for example on average make more than the same jobs here where I live. But the cost of living in Toronto is higher, averaging everything out. This site would not care where I live, and assumes my income goes as far no matter where in Canada I'm in.
Of course keeping regional variations in cost of living would not really be possible unless you had a crack team of interns or something, so I'm just complaining for no reason.
Of course keeping regional variations in cost of living would not really be possible unless you had a crack team of interns or something, so I'm just complaining for no reason.
Azem.Ocram
King
I’m a college student on welfare. In terms of revenue, I’m in the 75 to 90 percentile. In terms of net worth, I’m in the bottom 25%.
It was only a few years ago when I realized how much richer I really was than so many other places in the world. Because we're so used to living like our friends, it blinds us. It was part of why I jacked up my intentional charity giving, and why I worked on ratcheting up the efficacy of those donations, too.
I can literally double the social investment someone receives, merely by earmarking 2.5% of my income in a certain way. That's ... that's a brutal statistic to learn
As an aside, the "give what you can people" are actually correct in their argument and their request. It might not make sense for students or young people. People have to factor in their retirement savings as well. But we very much waste a lot of money that would be much better donated. Well "spend on frivolities", I mean, when I say "waste".
I can literally double the social investment someone receives, merely by earmarking 2.5% of my income in a certain way. That's ... that's a brutal statistic to learn
As an aside, the "give what you can people" are actually correct in their argument and their request. It might not make sense for students or young people. People have to factor in their retirement savings as well. But we very much waste a lot of money that would be much better donated. Well "spend on frivolities", I mean, when I say "waste".
Last edited:
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I really don't know how to phrase it, El. I realize that when I approach instructors richer than I, curious as to why I'm giving when I still have college loans, I can't adequately explain it's a combination of being haunted by the hell of Marley's ghost in the classical rendition when I realize I could probaly save a life a year with my alcohol budget if I wasn't too lazy to look up malaria nets, and a realization that I threw out lenses once, when my glasses residue literally carries the power of sight for a less fortunate but likely just as intelligent human. I think I'll burn hotter for knowing and not acting. How do we get me, much less the people acrimonious about thier landlords that are richer than me, to act?
If you read the Roundup(tm) thread, and noticed the word "revolting," I am sorry for the hamhanded wording. My frustration was not calling your(as percieved by me) stance revolting, but the one that refuses to pay for the burning of ditches instead of their mowing(in the great prarie of the trite U.S. of A.) requiring your(again percieved) moral calculus. I get it, man. I think. Maybe, if I'm caught up enough. You're always free to correct me, and I'll think about it. Promise.
I just get so mad when I meta this. It undoes the mental work I took so long to formulate.
If you read the Roundup(tm) thread, and noticed the word "revolting," I am sorry for the hamhanded wording. My frustration was not calling your(as percieved by me) stance revolting, but the one that refuses to pay for the burning of ditches instead of their mowing(in the great prarie of the trite U.S. of A.) requiring your(again percieved) moral calculus. I get it, man. I think. Maybe, if I'm caught up enough. You're always free to correct me, and I'll think about it. Promise.
I just get so mad when I meta this. It undoes the mental work I took so long to formulate.
Last edited:
You're not wrong, the wealth is flowing upwards. The more essential your workset is to the literal functioning of society, the more the wealth produced from that skill flows upwards. Individual countries are trapped in their own creation. By creating liquid capital, they then feel they must pacify the liquid capital to get it to not flee. But liquid capital just wants more liquid capital.
I think that farms, farms in general, show the peril of the free market. Farmers produce a good that is utterly essential to the well-being of people. It's created on a limited (and shrinking) set of resources. And yet the wages go down. It's because the free market is 'working'. If there are profits to be made, people lower their prices in order to scoop market share. And then eventually the profits are zero, and people work at subsistence. Then we throw in debt, and the 'need' to use debt to get ahead, to recreate the cycle again.
I have environmental concerns, yeah, and sometimes that means that I find that I need to support certain policies. But I'm haunted with the concern that we're sometimes eating the future. I don't have the ecological knowledge, so I just make noises. But there's no doubt about where my actual frustration lies. I can hand-wring with the concern about farm X using monoculture or fishery Y using fishmeal to feed their fish. But I also have family that regularly takes $2000 flights in order to bake in the sun and have people bring them sliced meats and sugary drinks.
There are people who're poorer than me who regularly give to charity. Some of them should be saving more. But to me, the savings should be coming from the luxuries budget. If 90% of the world's population must do without a certain luxury, I think twice about whether people richer than them should be buying it.
I rant most when we talk about the development of outer space. People always get offended by the money earmarked there. But will then shortly thereafter post about the fancy meal they just had.
I think that farms, farms in general, show the peril of the free market. Farmers produce a good that is utterly essential to the well-being of people. It's created on a limited (and shrinking) set of resources. And yet the wages go down. It's because the free market is 'working'. If there are profits to be made, people lower their prices in order to scoop market share. And then eventually the profits are zero, and people work at subsistence. Then we throw in debt, and the 'need' to use debt to get ahead, to recreate the cycle again.
I have environmental concerns, yeah, and sometimes that means that I find that I need to support certain policies. But I'm haunted with the concern that we're sometimes eating the future. I don't have the ecological knowledge, so I just make noises. But there's no doubt about where my actual frustration lies. I can hand-wring with the concern about farm X using monoculture or fishery Y using fishmeal to feed their fish. But I also have family that regularly takes $2000 flights in order to bake in the sun and have people bring them sliced meats and sugary drinks.
There are people who're poorer than me who regularly give to charity. Some of them should be saving more. But to me, the savings should be coming from the luxuries budget. If 90% of the world's population must do without a certain luxury, I think twice about whether people richer than them should be buying it.
I rant most when we talk about the development of outer space. People always get offended by the money earmarked there. But will then shortly thereafter post about the fancy meal they just had.
Disgustipated
Deity
I'm in the top 1.5% apparently. Though I wasn't sure of my after taxes income. Not a big fan of the donation message after that, or the general formatting of the results. I used to donate when I was younger, but I don't donate a cent now days. I have this irrational fear that I will get sick and unable to work and will need the money. I will donate my money after I die (via a will of course). At that point, I can be sure I won't need that money in case of emergency. 
And seeing as Social Security will run out of funding soon, it looks more than likely I will lose benefits or be unable to retire at 67. In short, I need that money so stop telling me to donate.
I see donating after you're dead as the wisest course of action.
And seeing as Social Security will run out of funding soon, it looks more than likely I will lose benefits or be unable to retire at 67. In short, I need that money so stop telling me to donate.I see donating after you're dead as the wisest course of action.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
This website is meant to prove that you're richer than you think, but what it actually proves is that the global working class is even poorer than you think.
If someone in the UK or the US can sit below the poverty line and still sail comfortably into the top 20%, as this site calculates, the problem is not that Westerners are too stingy with their charitable donations.
If someone in the UK or the US can sit below the poverty line and still sail comfortably into the top 20%, as this site calculates, the problem is not that Westerners are too stingy with their charitable donations.
Azem.Ocram
King
You must also take into account cost of living. People who make their money entirely from the Internet could be considered dirt poor in California yet extremely wealthy in most of Asia or Africa with the same income. The cost of living even in Mexico compared to the USA and Canada is so much lower that a small fraction of earnings sent as remittences can make families in Mexico as wealthy comparitively (or even wealthier) than the underpaid worker in the USA. Many people retire in less developed nations because their money goes further. I know some artists that moved from Seattle proper to a small town in Mexico with a large expat community who now live in luxury when they previously lived in poverty.
Many middle-income persons on the global scale live more luxuriously than most persons earning minimum wage in San Francisco even though $15/hr is a lot more than the global median wage.
Many middle-income persons on the global scale live more luxuriously than most persons earning minimum wage in San Francisco even though $15/hr is a lot more than the global median wage.
As a RL friend of mine pointed out a few years ago, whether to rent or not, or whether there is a working public health system which you can access, is usually not taken into account.Interesting that they're using income rather than assets to measure wealth.
Part of their insight is the value of your donation. Giving $15 to someone in a small town in Mexico, apparently, can buy a lot more well-being than giving someone in San Fransisco. Most people I know are happy to tip their wait staff ... they think of themselves as generous. After that, it's a question of the efficacy of the donated dollar.
Now that I actually have a job, the claim is that I'm in the top 2.4% of the world population by income. But if you go by net worth, I'm confident that my student loans would put me in the bottom 1%. Granted, I've always considered it kind of dubious to count debt against net worth, since only the relatively privileged can usually run up large debts, but still.
I suspect they make some assumptions to show people to be in higher income percentiles in order to get people to donate. Even then, though, they're probably only exaggerating my income percentile by something like a factor of two. I'm partial to effective altruism in general - if deworming and malaria bednets do far more to benefit more people than the same donation on cancer research, I would prefer the former. I don't advocate strict utilitarianism, but I do think prospective donors should at least consider the order of magnitude on the number of quality-adjusted life years they will add to the world total by donating to Cause A over Cause B.
I suspect they make some assumptions to show people to be in higher income percentiles in order to get people to donate. Even then, though, they're probably only exaggerating my income percentile by something like a factor of two. I'm partial to effective altruism in general - if deworming and malaria bednets do far more to benefit more people than the same donation on cancer research, I would prefer the former. I don't advocate strict utilitarianism, but I do think prospective donors should at least consider the order of magnitude on the number of quality-adjusted life years they will add to the world total by donating to Cause A over Cause B.
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
I got put in the richest 4.6% but I was really eyeballing it. I'm a college student, and only make a few thousand dollars a year from part-time/summer jobs, but my parents help me out a lot, so I was going by about how much money I think is spent by my parents and I on myself. I wasn't including tuition in the calculations because I have a scholarship to cover that. And yeah cost of living makes a huge difference. A lot of my friends are living in apartments with housemates for only ~$400-500/month.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Fortunately, that’s not actually a thing.
It's still reasonable to aggressively save for retirement. Dollars donated today can easily generate returns greater than can be achieved in a portfolio (i.e., a dollar donated today is more valuable than a dollar saved today), but uncertainty regarding retirement is a reasonable concern.
What then kicks in, with the argument towards altruism, is that you should not then live a profligate lifestyle once you're retired. It's our intentional reigning in of consumption that generates the room for charity donations. Our consumption choices tend to be where our environmental damage occurs too.
What then kicks in, with the argument towards altruism, is that you should not then live a profligate lifestyle once you're retired. It's our intentional reigning in of consumption that generates the room for charity donations. Our consumption choices tend to be where our environmental damage occurs too.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Lol, yes. It's insanity making.
Exactly. And this is one of the reasons I absolutely despise charities. They rely on guilt and shaming tactics to bully people into parting with their hard-earned money for whatever lost cause they are advocating. Sorry, but all my money goes to providing the absolute best life I can for my two daughters. You know, the only two people in this world I have any real obligation to provide for.
Similar threads
