Sources such as this claim that Americans are in the top 1% of world income earners:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
"According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut. Using current exchange rates, that amounts to roughly:
29,185 euros
2.2 million Indian rupees, or
211,126 Chinese yuan
So if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top 1% worldwide."
How can the majority of Americans be in the top 1%, given even worst case scenario, if we make up 4.35% of the world's population?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Largest_populations_by_country
And that the median income of the US per capita is $30,240?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
Which is an amount the globalrichlist.com website claims is in the top 1.2%.
So if half of Americas population is in the top 1.2% of the world, and also makes up 2.175% (half of US pop of 4.35%) of the world population. How is that mathematically possible giving them every single benefit of the doubt? You can not fit 2.175% of the world's population in a category that makes up 1.2% of the world's population. That is mathematically unsound. Where have I gone wrong or are these websites wrong?
it's a website to beg for donations by making people feel guilty for being rich, not a government census project
>Your monthly income could pay the monthly salaries of 97 doctors in Kazakhstan.
26000 / 12 / 97 = $ 22 per month
>Average monthly income in KZ = $549
lél why are doctors such keks?
>>1703142
Yeah but if you go by wealth you need about a $600k net worth to be in the 1%
That's the only one that counts because income is too easy to be in the 1%. There's fast food workers here in Australia who are in the 1% by income
>>1703277
My big contention is that the income measure is flawed on a mathematical basis, it would be impossible. Which debases the entire foundation of the website, at least its credibility. But I have not done the math for raw wealth, which seems less dubious initially as you say: $600k is half-believable.
Apparently 49k CAD annual income puts me in the top 0.65% richest of the world. Wut.
>>1703282
I put in $580,000 net worth on that site, and it was about 2.8%
I then put $599999 and it was about 2.5%
I put $600000 and it was 1.4% or something
Definitely flawed.
income doesnt mean anything because cost of living is different in different areas
>>1703347
They use PPP.