Bernie Sanders, personally, has more wealth than the entire wealth of the bottom one hundred million Americans.
Fact.
And here's why. "Wealth," in economic terms is measured in the same way as the Balance Sheet of a business. The Assets are accumulated and the Debts/Liabilities are accumulated, and the person's (or family's) "wealth" is the difference between the two. If the Assets are greater than the Liabilities, then the person has a Net Worth equal to the difference. If the Liabilities are greater than the Assets, then the person has a negative Net Worth, and is said, accurately, to have no measurable "wealth."
Now look at the American population with regard to personal wealth.
People under 25, as a general proposition, have no wealth. They have no savings, own no real estate outright, and even if they do, it is undoubtedly offset by a mortgage loan ("Liability") that is approximately equal to the value of the real estate. If they have a "nice" car, it probably REDUCES their Net Worth, because the loan balance is greater than the actual value of the car. Their personal possessions amount to nothing. Furniture, computers, toys of various kinds, jewelry...all have very little cash value, if any.
If they have signed a Lease, that actually REDUCES their Net Worth, because the minute you sign that Lease, you have a Liability equal to the cumulative value of ALL OF THE MONTHLY RENT PAYMENTS, not just for this month.
If you have Student Loans, your personal net worth will probably be negative into your 30's. If your credit card debt is "normal," that is also a liability that detracts from your personal net worth.
Now look at the broader population. Most people under 40 years old have essentially no savings. At best, they have a 401k plan or a company retirement plan with a few dollars in it, and these don't really start accumulating value until well into your career. If you "own" a home, again, your equity in the home doesn't really amount to much until you have been in the house for at least 10 years.
Look at all the people who never can afford to buy a home and live their whole lives, in effect, from paycheck to paycheck. They never accumulate any Net Worth.
So if you look at it realistically, at least 30% of the U.S. population has either a ZERO Net Worth, or it is negative. Adding all of the Net Worth of that entire 30% amounts to bupkis.
So if Bernie Sanders has a Net Worth of a couple million dollars (which he most assuredly does), then his personal net worth is greater than the total of the entire net worth of the bottom HUNDRED MILLION Americans. And when he rails on about the Top One Percent owning more than...whatever, it is usually pretty meaningless.
Just for perspective, I am 69 years old, married, own my own home, and have no debts. My household net worth is well into seven figures, but I was nearly 30 years old before our household Net Worth arose to ZERO. Before that it was negative. And I don't think my financial history is all that unusual.
Fact.
And here's why. "Wealth," in economic terms is measured in the same way as the Balance Sheet of a business. The Assets are accumulated and the Debts/Liabilities are accumulated, and the person's (or family's) "wealth" is the difference between the two. If the Assets are greater than the Liabilities, then the person has a Net Worth equal to the difference. If the Liabilities are greater than the Assets, then the person has a negative Net Worth, and is said, accurately, to have no measurable "wealth."
Now look at the American population with regard to personal wealth.
People under 25, as a general proposition, have no wealth. They have no savings, own no real estate outright, and even if they do, it is undoubtedly offset by a mortgage loan ("Liability") that is approximately equal to the value of the real estate. If they have a "nice" car, it probably REDUCES their Net Worth, because the loan balance is greater than the actual value of the car. Their personal possessions amount to nothing. Furniture, computers, toys of various kinds, jewelry...all have very little cash value, if any.
If they have signed a Lease, that actually REDUCES their Net Worth, because the minute you sign that Lease, you have a Liability equal to the cumulative value of ALL OF THE MONTHLY RENT PAYMENTS, not just for this month.
If you have Student Loans, your personal net worth will probably be negative into your 30's. If your credit card debt is "normal," that is also a liability that detracts from your personal net worth.
Now look at the broader population. Most people under 40 years old have essentially no savings. At best, they have a 401k plan or a company retirement plan with a few dollars in it, and these don't really start accumulating value until well into your career. If you "own" a home, again, your equity in the home doesn't really amount to much until you have been in the house for at least 10 years.
Look at all the people who never can afford to buy a home and live their whole lives, in effect, from paycheck to paycheck. They never accumulate any Net Worth.
So if you look at it realistically, at least 30% of the U.S. population has either a ZERO Net Worth, or it is negative. Adding all of the Net Worth of that entire 30% amounts to bupkis.
So if Bernie Sanders has a Net Worth of a couple million dollars (which he most assuredly does), then his personal net worth is greater than the total of the entire net worth of the bottom HUNDRED MILLION Americans. And when he rails on about the Top One Percent owning more than...whatever, it is usually pretty meaningless.
Just for perspective, I am 69 years old, married, own my own home, and have no debts. My household net worth is well into seven figures, but I was nearly 30 years old before our household Net Worth arose to ZERO. Before that it was negative. And I don't think my financial history is all that unusual.
