this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

US Authoritarianism

701 readers
378 users here now

Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world

founded 6 months ago
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

That can't be right though... 1000 people isn't nearly enough to drag the average income down 5k BELOW the median income in a nation of over 300 million. It should still be higher due to the long tail on the high side of incomes.

Proof: Average income in top 1% is 819k https://www.unbiased.com/discover/banking/how-much-income-puts-you-in-the-top-1-5-or-10#:~:text=To%20be%20in%20the%20top%201%25%20of%20earners%2C%20you',earn%20an%20average%20of%20%243%2C312%2C693.

Solve the weighted average:

819 * 0.01 + x*0.99 = 74.5

Where x is the remaining average. X≈66.3k, and that's excluding the ENTIRE 1% which is over a MILLION people at least, depending on how you count it. America is big.

[–] bratorange@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But I think this is only about wages right? It doesn’t take into account growth in net worth based on shares, does it?

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“Income” is understood to mean wages in measurements like this.

[–] bratorange@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Not sure about this. However if this was the case, income would be a pretty useless term in terms of describing financial inequality, as a lot of wealth gained would be excluded by this definition.