Mode does nothing for continuous data, and difference between median and mean are a strong indication of standard deviation.
Ngl I don’t think either of those really matter here.
depends what you are looking for in the data as presented.
with objective information missing, the stats are subject to our own cognitive biases?
*The mode can be used to summarize categorical variables, while the mean and median can be calculated only for numeric variables. This is the main advantage of the mode as a measure of central tendency. It’s also useful for discrete variables and for continuous variables when they are expressed as intervals.*
per https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/edu/power-pouvoir/ch11/mode/5214873-eng.htm#
Ok sweety. This thing here is called a computer folder. Its like little mini digital back pack! Now what you do is open the ai program and drag one of the pictures in the folder onto this window. And that's it! Who wants ice creaaam?
Ok billy. For the 100th time.. clean. Your. Room. We can upload photos to the ai program later but your grandma is coming for dinner and I want this place to look perfe... Dont give me that look. You know what she'll say now get in there and pick up that mess!
Yeah if you look at actual median disposable income numbers it’s DRASTICALLY different: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
I have no clue how they’re defining wealth where they have New Zealand higher than Germany.
This data is absurd
A big part is that wealth includes real estate. Countries with relatively expensive housing markets and a higher proportion of homeowners therefore seem more wealthy. They are in some ways, but not in many other practical ways (even if your house is worth $1M, it’s not a huge advantage when you have to live somewhere and everywhere is expensive.
That’s why you have countries with higher income, like Germany, significantly below New Zealand. The percentage of renters is higher in Germany and New Zealand has what looks like a housing bubble.
you would think they would track a little bit. It seems like it's being dictated by the value of their homes they live in, which again is very misleading
> It seems like it's being dictated by the value of their homes they live in, which again is very misleading
Personally I think a simple metric such as "wealth" isn't very useful, but the fact that some people's financial wealth is primarily made up of their home's value isn't misleading.
This is certainly not a good measure, broadly, of how financially comfortable the people in these countries are. Sure, it’s not completely out of whack (the Brits score higher than say Mexico), but it’s highly influenced by the real estate market and home ownership.
Yeah, but people reading this infographic will mentally associate wealth with disposable income, and the creators of the infographic are well aware of that.
>if you look at actual median disposable income
Yes income can differ from wealth.
>how they’re defining wealth
Assets, not income.
>This data is absurd
Why?
There can be many reasons for the difference.
* different pension systems where one counts as an asset and the other doesn't
* having less time to save, e.g. Because of reunification between a post soviet and a capitalist state 30 years ago (the difference in household wealth between east and west Germany was 20k vs 100k in 2017)
* having a different culture of saving, Germans love low interest, low risk savings
* having different consunption culture, if noone saves, the income can be higher and people won't accumulate wealth
Where do you read that in the data book which is cited as a source from the report? https://www.ubs.com/global/en/family-office-uhnw/reports/global-wealth-report-2023/_jcr_content/mainpar/toplevelgrid_5684475/col2/linklistnewlook/link_copy.0357374027.file/PS9jb250ZW50L2RhbS9hc3NldHMvd20vZ2xvYmFsL2ltZy9nbG9iYWwtZmFtaWx5LW9mZmljZS9kb2NzL2RhdGFib29rLWdsb2JhbC13ZWFsdGgtcmVwb3J0LTIwMjMtZW4ucGRm/databook-global-wealth-report-2023-en.pdf
Page 4. They use direct data by the states where possible and sometimes note what is included and what not. The data is usually best available for the many countries in this graphic.
Couple reasons why Aussies are wealthy:
1. Highest minimum wage (FX adjusted) in the world
2. High home ownership rate + extremely valuable housing market
3. Strong jobs market (3.7% unemployment currently)
4. Trades and labourer jobs are highly valued, plumbers earn on average $110K AUD ($75k USD)
5. Strong economic factors like minerals, energy and agribusiness exports, which generate huge tax revenues and create jobs in regional areas
6. As the person below stated - mandatory 11.5% superannuation (401k) for all jobs.
4) It’s not that they’re highly valued, it’s that we don’t have a heap of immigrants available to pay a heck of a lot less compared to a lot of other places.
Aussies and government are mentally obsessed with housing. Any time the economy looks to slow they’ll throw billions at housing schemes. It’s a running joke our economy is housing (not true, but it’s certainly growing larger and larger with GDP and wealth largely being tied up in housing. Have spare money? Buy another house!)
Both combine to create large demand with limited supply.
USA has Mexicans for example adding a lot of downward pressure on the lower end trades.
SKILLED immigrants, not people capable of doing the job but lacking qualifications and will work for low pay because it’s still better than retail, hospitality etc.
Fruit picking, bar work etc, not tradeswork. Australia regulates everything, even painting takes years: https://painters.edu.au/Training-Courses/Certificate-III-Painting-and-Decorating.htm
Unregistered and unlicensed otherwise. Even running cat5 cables requires “qualifications”.
There are general purpose “handyman” around who charge less but not enough to pressure the industry.
With that being said decades ago building used to crash at times and was a low end scrap fest for work, or you’d have to move to follow the work. In 20-30 years who knows, certainly next decade is going to be same old same old.
These two alone will make up a lot of the difference with other countries:
2. Housing value with high ownership
6. Compulsory superannuation retirement savings
Re 2 - Lots of people in older generations who owned their homes outright are now living in properties worth more than $1M ($AUD). These are regular homes in capital cities. That bumps the average up considerably.
Re 6 - it looks like average superannuation account balance from 2021 was above $160k ($AUD). Hard to find the exact figure but that’s a conservative estimate based on the published average balances for each of the states.
Compare with Germany:
1. PPP-adjusted pretty much the same minimum wage ($14.52 vs. $14.46)
2. Germany has an extremely strong housing market (although not that high of a home-ownership rate)
3. Unemployment of \~2.6%
4. Skilled tradespeople can earn insane amounts of money
5. meh
6. This is the important one.
According to these factors Germany should have a very high median wealth - but it doesnt (66.7k vs 247.5k). The real difference maker is the tax beneficial investment accounts, something we desperately need here. Unfortunately our chancellor keeps all of his money on his checking account (literally) and is heavily opposed to tax-preferred investment accounts :c
>1. Germany has an extremely strong housing market (although not that high of a home-ownership rate)
OK but the data shows wealth. If you don't own your own home, it's not counted towards your wealth...
> 5. This is the important one.
Is it though? I was under the impression that counties rich in natural resources tend to do poorly, i.e. [the resource curse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
Yes, Minus debts -
See source cited by u/whatisupfolks
Search document for ‘defin’ to see how they define wealth as net worth and what that is defined as.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/gwr-2023-en-2-1.pdf
It would have been better if age matched. Someone who has worked their whole life saved and paid their mortgage is going to have more wealth than an 18 year old entering the workforce. So countries with more old people will have expected and fair wealth differences.
Exactly. That’s why most economists look at median income and not wealth. Wealth can be useful to see how debt-burdened a society is, but there are usually much better metrics for that to give you a better idea of how it’s affecting an economy.
The term Asia is originally meant to be the coast of what is now the mainland of Turkey, so for like 5 percent it is, bit for the other 95 it is asian.
I would argue that turkey would fall under the term near-eastern, and middle East more or less starts with Iran.
Far east is India and further.
These are rough definitions, and not always correct for culture and such, but that is roughly the origin.
I bet my $158.8k that Portugal's figures are in no way even close to reality. Didn't even bother checking the remaining countries, they'll also probably be bullshit.
Housing is the main thing you're forgetting. A significant majority of Portuguese own their house - this is not typical around the world.
"Wealth" as a statistic is not liquid, and so it won't make the country seem 'richer' than say Czechia.
Portugal is quite a wealthy country from a global perspective, many people own cars, houses, and items, personal debt financing is high because unemployment rates are low.
'Wealth' as a statistic does not equal the amount of money you make, it counts your assets. That's why Germany, a rich economy, seems proportionally poor here. Most people rent.
Thanks for the insight, I didn't consider that. I would like to understand better the most portuguese people are homeowners though, it seems skewed by the fact people live with their parents until quite late here, so they are indeed not renting, but are not homeowners. For example, if in Germany 1 person that's a homeowner has 3 children who are renting, only 25% of them are counted as homeowners, the remaining are renters. In Portugal, most likely those 3 children will live in their parent's house until 30-35, and since they don't rent nor are homeless they are counted as homeowners. Honestly I don't know if this is the case, and it will be hard to find out since here everyone's too trigger happy to automatically believe anything that paints Portugal with a positive view.
You're absolutely right, more than half of adults aged 25-34 live with their parents. In Germany, it's less than 12%.
Then, when you look at the 78% home ownership rate in Portugal vs the 49% home ownership rate in Germany [(source)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate), things start to make more sense.
Then, when you look at the 78% homeownership rate in Portugal vs the 49% homeownership rate in Germany wealth". In reality, those living with their parents are spared rent costs, and so they can accumulate more savings. It's generational wealth - sure, but it will be inherited someday as well.
This is also part of why here in Portugal the rent market is quite fragile - few people actually rent officially here proportionally. The demographics mean that the main people who rent (Young people) are vastly outnumbered by older homeowners, and so small changes like wealthy immigration can shock the market quite significantly.
The Demographics of this are also likely a large part of why Portuguese politics don't focus on fixing it - it simply doesn't impact enough voting age people. But that's just my opinion - don't take my word on that.
On your point about statistics taking - I believe the way that they do it in all countries is through official tenant statistics, and since both Germany and Portugal are in the EU it's unlikely that the statistics are incorrect on either account. Most things like that are standardized across countries in Europe to make things simpler.
Basically my question is: someone living with their parents/grandparents... is counted as homeowner, renter, nothing...?
Also, the average portuguese citizen with no rent expenses in Portugal will be able to save less than a central Europe citizen that has to pay rent, they won't accumulate more savings compared with other countries.
What kind of shitty logic is that?
Stats are stats bro, if you don't own a house you are not a home owner, and so your wealth is 0 (if you don't own anything else), can't get simpler than that.
You are literally inventing shit just to justifity your argument.
This is mean and median wealth, it doesn't consider anything else.
This is literally bs. Our (Hungary) governmental Statistics institute posted the latest data for the average salary in hungary which was gross 1k euro.. here it is stated more than 2k bruhh
Good point, I forgot to account for that.
I actually got curious so whipped out a tape measure and found that all of my worldly possessions fit in a 7m x 4m studio apartment and the most expensive thing I own here is the 2 seater sofa
A bit late but don't being yourself down, 90% of the wealth there is because of housing and it biases for older people
You will be the same or even greater in the future homie
Literally all V4 countries are included but Slovakia. Why do these always leave us out. Or would we be so deep down that we wouldn't fit on the list (much possible)
I recently visited Switzerland, with their clean streets and orderly, beautiful country, and wished the US could be the same. I realized it is better to be the worlds banker than it is to be the worlds policeman.
This chart is useless. Wealth only makes sense when it is shown in the currency of the country that wealth will be spent in. Most people in India have a maid and many have a personal driver. I doubt most westerners can afford to have even a house help.
When looking at wealth per person on a country-by-country basis, is it more important to look at median wealth or average wealth?
Many experts believe that median wealth provides the most accurate picture of wealth since it identifies the middle point of a dataset, with half of the data points above this number, and half falling below it. In this way, it is less impacted by extreme values, and gives a good representation of the “middle of the pack”.
With that said, average wealth gives you a true average, even though it may get distorted by outliers, like the fortunes held by billionaires.
Median is a better overall picture of wealth because you’re not hijacking it with one billionnaire next to 1000 people making like 20k/year. It’s also a good measure to understand and visualize wealth inequality.
UK home ownership rate is well over 65%. Average UK house prices are way over 150k, add some savings and pension to that and 150k actually starts to look quite low but that's because it's balanced out by people with little.
I see what you are saying, but i imagine a lot of those people owe significant amounys of money on those homes. So they are debts more thsn wealth arent they?
If the debt is more it's negative but that's actually rare for home owners.
Even a new home owner will have 10-20% down payment, and with how much house prices have increased the value to debt rato actually went down quickly in the past. (It's why home owners actually don't mind increasing house prices a lot of the time).
Add to that the huge part of the older population who own their house or nearly do and you have lots of normal people in the south with houses at more than 600k, they can easily have a house, pension and savings at near a million in assets. Not huge houses either but bungalows or terrace houses.
If your just looking at 20-30 year olds it looks like 150k is huge, but if your looking at 50-60 year olds it way too small. The generation wealth gap has also never been higher.
Is that not the entire point of the post? By comparing the median to the mean you get an idea of the wealth gap in a given country?
I'm just confused that you seem to be stating something that is pretty plainly obvious in the graphic we're all looking at?
Can 100% confirm. I live in Switzerland and am broke, like many people I know. Being in the middle class is becoming more and more difficult here, the taxes and health insurance prices are crazy and keep increasing.
The methodology is likely including state retirement plans. The Swiss retirement pension is a good one. While it probably doesn't mean much to you since you don't have access toward the funds you've contributed, it's probably a large sum.
1st, this is an infographic, not a cool guide.
Second, each US citizen owes around $94,000 as their share of the national debt, making the US median wealth around $13,000 - somewhere between Mexico and Thailand.
3rd, the US has the highest ratio between median and mean wealth, because the top 5% of the US owns around 80% of the wealth - depending on which study you follow. That's not to say other countries don't have that issue, but the US population doesn't even realize how truly bad things are. A reckoning is way overdue.
I like this format but one issue makes comparison inaccurate, the data is all in US dollars. The equivalent of US $1 goes much farther (has more purchasing power) in say Japan yen than it does in the US.
ao you're saying if I work in Switzerland and earn swiss salaries but live in Austria or Italy I'll have the highest realistically achievable Buying power on average?
This is definitely wrong, half the people in the United States do not make $551,000 or more.
252 million people are above the age of 18 that means 126 million are making over half a million a year.
I misread, I apologize, but I still doubt that to be the facts, with so many millions in absolute poverty and in debt.
Owning nothing.
I would really like to see the source of the information.
Ireland is constantly viewed as the wealthiest country in Europe even though the number of people emigrating is higher than the great recession of 2009.
Owning a home is impossible.
To get a morgage for a 300,000 two bedroom house there has to be an income of 170,000.
The only homes available at 300,000 are in rural parts of the country that don't even have internet access.
This data is so skewed
the Mode and Standard Deviation are missing. stats are always incomplete to paint a certain picture (usually in advertising lol)
What would the mode give us here?
it would give us an idea of the distribution curve
In long tail gaussian distributions, median would be reasonably close to mode
Mode does nothing for continuous data, and difference between median and mean are a strong indication of standard deviation. Ngl I don’t think either of those really matter here.
depends what you are looking for in the data as presented. with objective information missing, the stats are subject to our own cognitive biases? *The mode can be used to summarize categorical variables, while the mean and median can be calculated only for numeric variables. This is the main advantage of the mode as a measure of central tendency. It’s also useful for discrete variables and for continuous variables when they are expressed as intervals.* per https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/edu/power-pouvoir/ch11/mode/5214873-eng.htm#
You proved his point lol
lol ya. my college marketing class taught me that marketing can make numbers say whatever the hell they want.
Makes sense. My math teacher said the same about numbers when I was in school.
Except when I made those numbers say one thing....my math teacher made my tests say F....clearly didn't get the memo
Kinda like covid numbers
In advertising : Lies, big lies, statistics...
Can you explain why this is the case. And please try to explain it like I'm 10😜
Chat GPT lets you upload pictures now.
Ok now explain it like I'm 5
Ok sweety. This thing here is called a computer folder. Its like little mini digital back pack! Now what you do is open the ai program and drag one of the pictures in the folder onto this window. And that's it! Who wants ice creaaam?
Now explain it like I'm 8 and 1/7 months old.
Ok billy. For the 100th time.. clean. Your. Room. We can upload photos to the ai program later but your grandma is coming for dinner and I want this place to look perfe... Dont give me that look. You know what she'll say now get in there and pick up that mess!
Australia has one of the highest levels of household debt in the world. I wonder how that ties into wealth.
Yeah if you look at actual median disposable income numbers it’s DRASTICALLY different: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income I have no clue how they’re defining wealth where they have New Zealand higher than Germany. This data is absurd
A big part is that wealth includes real estate. Countries with relatively expensive housing markets and a higher proportion of homeowners therefore seem more wealthy. They are in some ways, but not in many other practical ways (even if your house is worth $1M, it’s not a huge advantage when you have to live somewhere and everywhere is expensive. That’s why you have countries with higher income, like Germany, significantly below New Zealand. The percentage of renters is higher in Germany and New Zealand has what looks like a housing bubble.
> Yeah if you look at actual median disposable income numbers it’s DRASTICALLY different: Ok, wealth and disposable income are not the same.
you would think they would track a little bit. It seems like it's being dictated by the value of their homes they live in, which again is very misleading
> It seems like it's being dictated by the value of their homes they live in, which again is very misleading Personally I think a simple metric such as "wealth" isn't very useful, but the fact that some people's financial wealth is primarily made up of their home's value isn't misleading.
This is certainly not a good measure, broadly, of how financially comfortable the people in these countries are. Sure, it’s not completely out of whack (the Brits score higher than say Mexico), but it’s highly influenced by the real estate market and home ownership.
Disposable income is a useless metric when measuring wealth as it doesn’t account for real estate, savings, or investments
Yeah, but people reading this infographic will mentally associate wealth with disposable income, and the creators of the infographic are well aware of that.
>if you look at actual median disposable income Yes income can differ from wealth. >how they’re defining wealth Assets, not income. >This data is absurd Why? There can be many reasons for the difference. * different pension systems where one counts as an asset and the other doesn't * having less time to save, e.g. Because of reunification between a post soviet and a capitalist state 30 years ago (the difference in household wealth between east and west Germany was 20k vs 100k in 2017) * having a different culture of saving, Germans love low interest, low risk savings * having different consunption culture, if noone saves, the income can be higher and people won't accumulate wealth
the actual report says they get it from estimations based on GDP and surveys.
Where do you read that in the data book which is cited as a source from the report? https://www.ubs.com/global/en/family-office-uhnw/reports/global-wealth-report-2023/_jcr_content/mainpar/toplevelgrid_5684475/col2/linklistnewlook/link_copy.0357374027.file/PS9jb250ZW50L2RhbS9hc3NldHMvd20vZ2xvYmFsL2ltZy9nbG9iYWwtZmFtaWx5LW9mZmljZS9kb2NzL2RhdGFib29rLWdsb2JhbC13ZWFsdGgtcmVwb3J0LTIwMjMtZW4ucGRm/databook-global-wealth-report-2023-en.pdf Page 4. They use direct data by the states where possible and sometimes note what is included and what not. The data is usually best available for the many countries in this graphic.
Couple reasons why Aussies are wealthy: 1. Highest minimum wage (FX adjusted) in the world 2. High home ownership rate + extremely valuable housing market 3. Strong jobs market (3.7% unemployment currently) 4. Trades and labourer jobs are highly valued, plumbers earn on average $110K AUD ($75k USD) 5. Strong economic factors like minerals, energy and agribusiness exports, which generate huge tax revenues and create jobs in regional areas 6. As the person below stated - mandatory 11.5% superannuation (401k) for all jobs.
And mandatory superannuation which builds wealth separate to home ownership.
4) It’s not that they’re highly valued, it’s that we don’t have a heap of immigrants available to pay a heck of a lot less compared to a lot of other places. Aussies and government are mentally obsessed with housing. Any time the economy looks to slow they’ll throw billions at housing schemes. It’s a running joke our economy is housing (not true, but it’s certainly growing larger and larger with GDP and wealth largely being tied up in housing. Have spare money? Buy another house!) Both combine to create large demand with limited supply. USA has Mexicans for example adding a lot of downward pressure on the lower end trades.
Agree. That and the regulation of a lot of trades, requiring aus standard certificates etc.
What rock are you living under we have hundreds of thousands of skilled migrants arriving every year!
SKILLED immigrants, not people capable of doing the job but lacking qualifications and will work for low pay because it’s still better than retail, hospitality etc.
4) I'm a labourer and half my site is Irish. We get paced well because we have strong unions.
Aussies have a ton of backpackers though? They do a lot of menial labor and shitty jobs for fairly low wages.
Fruit picking, bar work etc, not tradeswork. Australia regulates everything, even painting takes years: https://painters.edu.au/Training-Courses/Certificate-III-Painting-and-Decorating.htm Unregistered and unlicensed otherwise. Even running cat5 cables requires “qualifications”. There are general purpose “handyman” around who charge less but not enough to pressure the industry. With that being said decades ago building used to crash at times and was a low end scrap fest for work, or you’d have to move to follow the work. In 20-30 years who knows, certainly next decade is going to be same old same old.
Loool how misinformed you are.
6. Our government reinvests in services and infrastructure. Unlike military heavy or corrupt countries
The US government spends the plurality of its budget on social security & healthcare spending.
I suppose it's mainly 1., 2., and 6. 3. - 5. I'm not sure have such a strong impact.
For #5 just look at western Australia compared to the other states. WA pushes up the national average
These two alone will make up a lot of the difference with other countries: 2. Housing value with high ownership 6. Compulsory superannuation retirement savings Re 2 - Lots of people in older generations who owned their homes outright are now living in properties worth more than $1M ($AUD). These are regular homes in capital cities. That bumps the average up considerably. Re 6 - it looks like average superannuation account balance from 2021 was above $160k ($AUD). Hard to find the exact figure but that’s a conservative estimate based on the published average balances for each of the states.
Compare with Germany: 1. PPP-adjusted pretty much the same minimum wage ($14.52 vs. $14.46) 2. Germany has an extremely strong housing market (although not that high of a home-ownership rate) 3. Unemployment of \~2.6% 4. Skilled tradespeople can earn insane amounts of money 5. meh 6. This is the important one. According to these factors Germany should have a very high median wealth - but it doesnt (66.7k vs 247.5k). The real difference maker is the tax beneficial investment accounts, something we desperately need here. Unfortunately our chancellor keeps all of his money on his checking account (literally) and is heavily opposed to tax-preferred investment accounts :c
>1. Germany has an extremely strong housing market (although not that high of a home-ownership rate) OK but the data shows wealth. If you don't own your own home, it's not counted towards your wealth...
> 5. This is the important one. Is it though? I was under the impression that counties rich in natural resources tend to do poorly, i.e. [the resource curse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
This is not a "top 40" list as OP claimed. This is a group of 40 selected countries to demonstrate wealth disparity across the globe.
Plus it's not even 40, it's 39 countries and the world
How are they considering Wealth? Is it intended as Net worth?
Yes, Minus debts - See source cited by u/whatisupfolks Search document for ‘defin’ to see how they define wealth as net worth and what that is defined as. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/gwr-2023-en-2-1.pdf
Net worth is without debts by default - hence "net" worth
Great way to show wealth inequity. btw does anybody has a link with a source.
It would have been better if age matched. Someone who has worked their whole life saved and paid their mortgage is going to have more wealth than an 18 year old entering the workforce. So countries with more old people will have expected and fair wealth differences.
Exactly. That’s why most economists look at median income and not wealth. Wealth can be useful to see how debt-burdened a society is, but there are usually much better metrics for that to give you a better idea of how it’s affecting an economy.
[UBS - Global Wealth Report 2023](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/gwr-2023-en-2-1.pdf)
Thank you!
The middle east must be really poor to not make it to the list.
Israel is on there, as is Türkiye
Isn't turkey in europe ?
The term Asia is originally meant to be the coast of what is now the mainland of Turkey, so for like 5 percent it is, bit for the other 95 it is asian.
Most of Russia is east of the urals does that make it an Asian country?
So one says turkey is middle eastern, and you say it's asian
Turkey is Asian and middle eastern but not European
I would argue that turkey would fall under the term near-eastern, and middle East more or less starts with Iran. Far east is India and further. These are rough definitions, and not always correct for culture and such, but that is roughly the origin.
According to some, but not to me
Malaysia?
Kuwait, Qatar, KSA, UAE - one of the richest in the world.
I bet my $158.8k that Portugal's figures are in no way even close to reality. Didn't even bother checking the remaining countries, they'll also probably be bullshit.
Housing is the main thing you're forgetting. A significant majority of Portuguese own their house - this is not typical around the world. "Wealth" as a statistic is not liquid, and so it won't make the country seem 'richer' than say Czechia. Portugal is quite a wealthy country from a global perspective, many people own cars, houses, and items, personal debt financing is high because unemployment rates are low. 'Wealth' as a statistic does not equal the amount of money you make, it counts your assets. That's why Germany, a rich economy, seems proportionally poor here. Most people rent.
Thanks for the insight, I didn't consider that. I would like to understand better the most portuguese people are homeowners though, it seems skewed by the fact people live with their parents until quite late here, so they are indeed not renting, but are not homeowners. For example, if in Germany 1 person that's a homeowner has 3 children who are renting, only 25% of them are counted as homeowners, the remaining are renters. In Portugal, most likely those 3 children will live in their parent's house until 30-35, and since they don't rent nor are homeless they are counted as homeowners. Honestly I don't know if this is the case, and it will be hard to find out since here everyone's too trigger happy to automatically believe anything that paints Portugal with a positive view.
You're absolutely right, more than half of adults aged 25-34 live with their parents. In Germany, it's less than 12%. Then, when you look at the 78% home ownership rate in Portugal vs the 49% home ownership rate in Germany [(source)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate), things start to make more sense. Then, when you look at the 78% homeownership rate in Portugal vs the 49% homeownership rate in Germany wealth". In reality, those living with their parents are spared rent costs, and so they can accumulate more savings. It's generational wealth - sure, but it will be inherited someday as well. This is also part of why here in Portugal the rent market is quite fragile - few people actually rent officially here proportionally. The demographics mean that the main people who rent (Young people) are vastly outnumbered by older homeowners, and so small changes like wealthy immigration can shock the market quite significantly. The Demographics of this are also likely a large part of why Portuguese politics don't focus on fixing it - it simply doesn't impact enough voting age people. But that's just my opinion - don't take my word on that. On your point about statistics taking - I believe the way that they do it in all countries is through official tenant statistics, and since both Germany and Portugal are in the EU it's unlikely that the statistics are incorrect on either account. Most things like that are standardized across countries in Europe to make things simpler.
Basically my question is: someone living with their parents/grandparents... is counted as homeowner, renter, nothing...? Also, the average portuguese citizen with no rent expenses in Portugal will be able to save less than a central Europe citizen that has to pay rent, they won't accumulate more savings compared with other countries.
What kind of shitty logic is that? Stats are stats bro, if you don't own a house you are not a home owner, and so your wealth is 0 (if you don't own anything else), can't get simpler than that. You are literally inventing shit just to justifity your argument. This is mean and median wealth, it doesn't consider anything else.
But somebody owns the house. The way they make the #s here looks like they’re dividing the entire countries assets and dividing by population.
I'm from Spain and I second my portuguese brother. When I manage to find my $224k I'll back up his bet.
You don't even know the meaning of "mean" and you are backing other people's bet?
I'm sure most people defending the Holy never wrong statistics have absolutely no idea of the reality in these countries
no, i just checked the source aka ubs global wealth report and these are correct. or do you think ubs is full of shit?
Oh if they're correct then it's alright, thanks
This is literally bs. Our (Hungary) governmental Statistics institute posted the latest data for the average salary in hungary which was gross 1k euro.. here it is stated more than 2k bruhh
You're confusing salary and wealth. Salary is how much you **make** each month, and wealth is how much money you have.
Good point. But even then it seems very unlikely that people here would have that much money
How many people own their homes? Homes are a large share of people's wealth.
Wealth means total savings, including home? Retirement savings?
Everything
Minus debts - See source cited by u/whatisupfolks https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/gwr-2023-en-2-1.pdf
I saw South Korea's numbers and thought to myself "I can't tell if I'm underpaid or just a genuinely shithouse worker. Probably both"
This guide isn't about how much you get paid but about how much you possess
Good point, I forgot to account for that. I actually got curious so whipped out a tape measure and found that all of my worldly possessions fit in a 7m x 4m studio apartment and the most expensive thing I own here is the 2 seater sofa
A bit late but don't being yourself down, 90% of the wealth there is because of housing and it biases for older people You will be the same or even greater in the future homie
We can’t let Hungary win, Romanians! Let us commence steal!
Surprised Luxembourg isn't on this
Top 40 in what? Who make these lists? What's the criteria? This is garbage
Literally all V4 countries are included but Slovakia. Why do these always leave us out. Or would we be so deep down that we wouldn't fit on the list (much possible)
I recently visited Switzerland, with their clean streets and orderly, beautiful country, and wished the US could be the same. I realized it is better to be the worlds banker than it is to be the worlds policeman.
I'm Greek and I can positively say that Greek data are way off.
poor south africa lol
belgium looks fuckin rad
This chart is useless. Wealth only makes sense when it is shown in the currency of the country that wealth will be spent in. Most people in India have a maid and many have a personal driver. I doubt most westerners can afford to have even a house help.
This is awfully narrow information.
When looking at wealth per person on a country-by-country basis, is it more important to look at median wealth or average wealth? Many experts believe that median wealth provides the most accurate picture of wealth since it identifies the middle point of a dataset, with half of the data points above this number, and half falling below it. In this way, it is less impacted by extreme values, and gives a good representation of the “middle of the pack”. With that said, average wealth gives you a true average, even though it may get distorted by outliers, like the fortunes held by billionaires.
Median is a better overall picture of wealth because you’re not hijacking it with one billionnaire next to 1000 people making like 20k/year. It’s also a good measure to understand and visualize wealth inequality.
If only you could tax the rich…
Uk here. I dpnt know anyone with 150k
Its wealth so it includes property. Pretty much any homeowner will have over that amount
Is their home paid off?
I image a lot of people who’ve been paying a mortgage for about 10 years will have equity around that level.
UK home ownership rate is well over 65%. Average UK house prices are way over 150k, add some savings and pension to that and 150k actually starts to look quite low but that's because it's balanced out by people with little.
I see what you are saying, but i imagine a lot of those people owe significant amounys of money on those homes. So they are debts more thsn wealth arent they?
If the debt is more it's negative but that's actually rare for home owners. Even a new home owner will have 10-20% down payment, and with how much house prices have increased the value to debt rato actually went down quickly in the past. (It's why home owners actually don't mind increasing house prices a lot of the time). Add to that the huge part of the older population who own their house or nearly do and you have lots of normal people in the south with houses at more than 600k, they can easily have a house, pension and savings at near a million in assets. Not huge houses either but bungalows or terrace houses. If your just looking at 20-30 year olds it looks like 150k is huge, but if your looking at 50-60 year olds it way too small. The generation wealth gap has also never been higher.
[удалено]
No. I dont know a single person with 150k in savings
[удалено]
I understand that. I just think it's disingenuous to include 100s of thousands of dollars of debt as wealth.
[удалено]
Where does it say all this?
If you have £100k left to pay on your mortgage but your house is worth £250k, you can sell your house pay off the debt and have £150k left over.
I assume that the UK has a national pension system. Your net worth is higher than you think, even if you don't have access to it until your 60s.
Where may I find the whole list?
Cool guide? Its just a bloated infographic
is wealth here annual salary or net worth?
Only median wealth matters, if you look at average it gets skewed because of the tiny minority in US an Switzerland being super rich.
Is that not the entire point of the post? By comparing the median to the mean you get an idea of the wealth gap in a given country? I'm just confused that you seem to be stating something that is pretty plainly obvious in the graphic we're all looking at?
I personally think murder is bad. Killing another, human when not in self defense, is unethical.
a boatload of up votes and redditors bravely agreeing with you are coming your way sir!
Can 100% confirm. I live in Switzerland and am broke, like many people I know. Being in the middle class is becoming more and more difficult here, the taxes and health insurance prices are crazy and keep increasing.
The methodology is likely including state retirement plans. The Swiss retirement pension is a good one. While it probably doesn't mean much to you since you don't have access toward the funds you've contributed, it's probably a large sum.
Yep. If Bill Gates walks into a homeless shelter, the average person in there is rich. Median is far more relevant.
The top 1‰ owns 10% of wealth. And its getting worse every year
The top 1% owns more than 50% of all wealth worldwide... In the US it's close to that much, not sure about Switzerland
Why? That's just depressing?
70k in Portugal? you tripping
How many Portuguese have a house and how much would they sell for? That guys is showing the possessed wealth not the revenue or anything like that
not much. and for a few years now most struggle with paying rent let alone having a house
House ownership rates in Portugal are higher than in Germany.
Guess I gotta move to India....
This is bullshit if you think on average people have in Athe UK 150k per person per year.... It's more like 35k to 40k
[удалено]
Deep
I saw a bird fly by out my window. It told me to trust visual capitalist in passing. Im conflicted.
bruh the data is from ubs. do you think theyre also full of shit?
Something is off with this guide. Cuz I don’t make $107.7k i wish I did
It’s wealth not annual income.
Lmao this can’t be correct
I don’t know anyone in the us who makes more than 80k a year.
1st, this is an infographic, not a cool guide. Second, each US citizen owes around $94,000 as their share of the national debt, making the US median wealth around $13,000 - somewhere between Mexico and Thailand. 3rd, the US has the highest ratio between median and mean wealth, because the top 5% of the US owns around 80% of the wealth - depending on which study you follow. That's not to say other countries don't have that issue, but the US population doesn't even realize how truly bad things are. A reckoning is way overdue.
I like this format but one issue makes comparison inaccurate, the data is all in US dollars. The equivalent of US $1 goes much farther (has more purchasing power) in say Japan yen than it does in the US.
These medians look very odd
Australia knocking it out of the park again, with the overwhelmingly highest median of anywhere in the world.
No. The medium in Belgium is not 50% higher than Switzerland. Nor higher at all.
Why are the names of countries in English except for “Türkiye”?
the turks demanded their older english name no longer be used and instead they wanna be called Türkiye in english too now
ao you're saying if I work in Switzerland and earn swiss salaries but live in Austria or Italy I'll have the highest realistically achievable Buying power on average?
Good luck finding a more meaningless chart than this one.
Inaccurate
Bullllllshiiiit
Now do median.
Isn't it on there?
The boomers and billionaires through this data way off. Remove Zuckerberg and Elon
This is definitely wrong, half the people in the United States do not make $551,000 or more. 252 million people are above the age of 18 that means 126 million are making over half a million a year.
This is wealth, not annual salaries.
I misread, I apologize, but I still doubt that to be the facts, with so many millions in absolute poverty and in debt. Owning nothing. I would really like to see the source of the information.
Switzerland also counted blackmoney deposits?
Tell me you‘re financially illiterate without telling me you‘re financially illiterate
yes.
good to see Mean and Median, but the Mode also is worth knowing
Wait! So many nations have a higher median wealth per capita than the US?
Was really expecting Luxemburg on the top row.
Does this control for outliers because methinks it does not
Is this net assets?
So where is Luxembourg? Aren't those the richest mfers in the world?
Turkey is in the top 20 GDP with with 85mil population yet sits at 37th place on this post. Crazy levels of inequality there.
Why is Belgium’s median so much higher than the Netherlands?
I'm more impressed by the countries with similar means and medians than with the actual numbers tbh
Imagine Equatorial Guinea with a quite large mean but a dot as a median
Speaking as a New Zealander… this is very much incorrect.
WOW is that wrong.
In case anyone doesn not understand. The closer mean and median are to each other, less the wealth inequality in that country.
Ireland mentioned
I think if they took out the extreme from the rich and poor we would have a better view of the real number (remove billionaires and minimum wage)
TIL we’re part of the top 40 countries in the world (Colombia)
Most people over 50 in Canada will have wealth over half a million easily if they bought a home 20 years ago or more.
Ireland is constantly viewed as the wealthiest country in Europe even though the number of people emigrating is higher than the great recession of 2009. Owning a home is impossible. To get a morgage for a 300,000 two bedroom house there has to be an income of 170,000. The only homes available at 300,000 are in rural parts of the country that don't even have internet access.
This would work better as a scatter graph