Well sure, when talking about experience. But not wealth. A millionaire living in my city is objectively wealthy regardless of age. I'm not "wealthy" by any means. Despite that, my income is top 1% for my age-group. However the median income for my peers is also barely above minimum wage, so thats not a terribly helpful metric. Knowing I'm in the top 11% regardless of age is far more helpful in understanding how I fit into my local community.
No, I just formed a poor sentence. My sibling said it better.
The reason they don't segment by age is that at the wealth scale we're discussing, the amount accumulated in an average person's life is irrelevant. It's called a 'class' for a reason; mobility is difficult. It's not like "I got a raise, and now I'm significantly ahead." The top 1% is an income of over $350k/year. A lawyer making $150k is just outside of the 5% range.
Wealth is best measured in terms of age. A wealthy 25 year old with only 3 million in the bank is in a very different situation than a 70 year old with 3 million. The difference is 'earning potential' over their lifetime.
Wealth is a side effect of age. Most millionaires and billionaires are seniors. Despite being in the top percentile in terms of capital, most millionaires they don’t feel financially secure, regardless of their age. I think that insecurity is understandable.
You bring up a good point. When we're talking about wealth, we all seem to ignore age in the process. Age has a huge impact on how wealthy you are.
If you're 25 and you have $2.5M? Yes, you're wealthy since you have 40 years of earning potential on top of your money.
If you're 65 and you have $2.5M? Very well off, but nowhere close to the 25 year old.
Same goes with inequality. If you ignore age, then things really unfair. How can someone have $3M and another nothing? But that ignore the fact that you'll have inequality regardless just due to age. It's not unreasonable for someone who is 65 to have a lot more money than someone who is 25. That's just the benefit of time.
People at age 25 year olds are likely to make half of 35 year olds. But 45 year olds in the top 1% are roughly equal to the 35 year olds (no real increase).
Also older folks are much more likely to have wealth to live off of than young people. But we don't like to talk about wealth in America really, only income.
I feel like age shouldn't factor in, only location. Granted expenses will be different based on age, but they don't seem to be using expenses to determine "rich-ness" at all.
You may, however, appreciate your millions more if they come to you at 50, even if you aren't wealthy for as many years. I think there's a quantity vs quality argument that could be made there.
I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but perspective can be gained with age and experience and that can colour your view of the world and how much you appreciate what you really do have.
You're right that the "ebb and flow" on wealth is much less of a factor than on income, and that I conflated those two.
But not controlling for age is still a major omission. A lot of middle class people are in the top 10% as they near retirement because they've been saving throughout their life. How many? The article doesn't say.
I agree. Good data about the nuances around this seems tricky to find. In addition to reading The Millionaire Next Door a long time ago, I just did a little further research and found:
> A 2017 survey from Fidelity Investments found that 88 percent of millionaires are self-made.[1]
I'm not sure if there's anything super motivational about knowing that most millionaires are professionals near retirement age, though. :)
reply