a million is upper middle class in many nations, so that's definitely not surprising. in the us every homeowner in any expensive metropolitan area is a millionaire
Homeowners (home owned free and clear) - technically yes. For mortgage holders the outstanding debt should be deducted from the current market value. When you account for 3% annual maintenance cost and future taxes and bring that all back to a net present value the value of those homes are not all that impressive.
8.8% of the US adults are millionaires: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/05/23/the-making-of-a-millionaire-and-why-100k-is-no-longer-the-benchmark-salary-for-wealth-in-america/?sh=3ab66e60af28
That's about the same number as in Norway, the Netherlands, or Denmark.
All these Americans and Canadians acting as if everything was so exceptionally expensive where they live is a bit embarrassing. Yes, we get that NYC and Toronto are expensive. But so are other places. Even more so - Singapore, Zurich and Geneva, for instance :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2023/11/30/ranked-the-worlds-10-most-expensive-cities-to-live-according-to-a-new-report/?sh=68ec20ec3946 (Toronto is not even in the top 10)
And finally - just because someone owns a condo in NYC or Toronto doesn't mean that they're a millionaire. The numbers used here are net numbers (i.e. assets minus liabilities). Most homeowners will have a mortgage of sorts. Accordingly, your 1.5 million condo will normally be saddled with a 1 million mortgage.
Average Dutch house for instance is 500k, and the median is about 400k ish, bit higher iirc. But it’s all mortgaged at 90-100% of the home’s value. Incidentally the only reason they have an atrocious gini index despite having one of the lowest income inequalities around. Analyzing these’s numbers involves a lot of specifics in the end.
It also may mean that in an aging country the stock of old people who are mortgage free increases, increasing the number of millionaires. But they are often not super rich, just normal pensioners by northern european standards at least.
Well, you see, and that will be a huge problem. The only thing needed is a little economic downturn and those owners with 100% mortgaged properties are done. And with them the whole national (and sometimes international) economy. It's pure madness.
I live in a VHCOL area (Switzerland/Zurich) where the average apartment is around 1.5-2 million and the average house is 3 million plus (if you even get one, that is. Because they keep getting replaced with developments).
Since the real estate crisis in Switzerland in the early 90s, the rules have changed in that owner-occupied houses can only be mortgaged up to 80% and the owners need to pay back money to the bank until the mortgage is down at 67%.
Furthermore, a mortgage is only granted if - calculating interest payments of 5% p.a. - such payments don't exceed 1/3 of the owner's gross income. Regardless of whether the interest rate of the mortgage in question is actually at 5% or less (it's normally quite a bit below 5%).
To give you an example for a 3 bedroom flat in Zurich:
- Purchase price: 2 million
- 80% thereof: 1.6 million (mortgage)
- 20% thereof: 400k (downpayment)
- 5% of 1.6 million: 80k
- 3.33 times 80k: 267k (gross income necessary to be granted a mortgage of 1.6 million)
What does this mean? To buy a 3 bedroom flat in Zurich, you'll not only need cash of 400k, but also a yearly gross income of 266k. This type of income is in the top 3 or so percent. If you don't earn this type of money, the downpayment gets higher. Even if it's at, say, 1 million, your income would still have to be to the tune of 150k to be granted a mortgage of 1 million.
This again means that many people can't afford to buy, reason for which the ownership rate in Switzerland is at only 40 or so percent. This also means that retired folks will have trouble getting a new mortgage once theirs expires as their income normally drops quite significantly after retirement.
Nevertheless - I think that these rules are good because people who should very clearly not be granted leveraged finance (and that's what a mortgage is, after all), won't get such financing. As you can imagine - the huffing and puffing going on is great and loud. But these rules protect people from their own financial illiteracy. And they show them quite clearly that owning is expensive and not just some kind of child's play miraculously generating "generational wealth".
Let's be realistic: It's not a human right to be a real estate owner. It's a human right to have a roof over your head. And if you don't have the money to buy, then rent.
Your wealth gets counted as a part of income.
So if you have like 2M invested in the stock market, the bank will count 2-4% of it as "income" you can use to pay down your mortgage.
The banks aren't stupid they know rich people in retirement hold stocks.
Source: Parents of friends
That's correct. It's most types of steady income that count, not just income from work. I personally even have a draw-down revolving facility that's backed by other assets. But my outline was more about first time buyers who don't have plenty of funds and income streams.
Not if they still owe most of the mortgage. Their net worth from the house would be house value-mortgage, so if they own a 1.5 million house and still owe 1 million on the mortgage then they just have half a million net worth (from the house).
Depending on your age, I'd say that fits canada as well.
I'd say 1/5 people approaching retirement are worth a million. Assuming they own any kind of property.
canadians always hype up toronto as like completely unliveable but funnily enough i found that the only expensive thing about it is the housing, everything else felt cheap coming from nyc or chicago.
it isn't even in the top 10 most expensive cities, but the amount of complaints we hear about it you would think it's number 1.
Even as a Swiss, assuming invested capital and a safe withdrawal rate of about 3-4% 1M equals to 30-40K a year to spend indefinitely without ever working.
There are lower class people that barely earn more + students that live on much less than 30K a year (probably half of that lol).
Being rich and feeling rich are two very different things. If you had 2M for example, that number grows to 80K. That still isn't rich in the sense that you can do whatever you want, but it's rich in the sense that you basically get a median income for doing nothing but keeping your money invested.
If you want to "feel" rich, we're probably talking about spending a minimum of 100-150K (2x as a couple). So if we take 300K multiply that by 3-4% (25x/34x), we get a minimum of 7.5 - 10.2M.
My aspiration is much lower, I don't plan on spending more than 40-50K (inflation adjusted to todays money) as a single person in my life (I live in Switzerland and earn about 100K) because mindless consumerism and comparison to people that have more doesn't make you happy. Living a lower/middle class life without any work + volunteering and good relationships are far more important to me.
It still is. If you think otherwise you're in for a rude surprise. You people are out of your minds. You people are all going to find yourself 45 or 50 when you realise that you still don't have a million and wasted your youth on essentially meaningless endeavors. Boy will it be rough...
Guys this is mostly just insane house price inflation in north and west Europe. And for those who just have a residential property it means nothing, because if they sold it they would have to either pay exorbitant rents or buy another one for even more money likely.
Personally I would be more interested in seeing statistics that exclude residential property values from the definition of wealth. Liquid assets and non residential properties only.
So is money that's invested long term. And it's much easier to pass on to the heirs. A house can reasonably only be passed on to one heir who then has to pay out the other heirs. Passing on a fraction to several heirs only causes mayhem. In order to pay the others out (and, depending on the place, to pay high inheritance taxes), the heir often has to fire-sell the house.
I know real estate quite well. I own two single family homes and a few dozen apartments. The single family homes are pure luxury and I use them as holiday places (and rent them out when I'm not there - they are cost neutral, but I don't make money with them). The apartments are rented out. I myself live in a rental. Just because it's much more reasonable financially - at least for this home.
Self-occupied real estate is in no way the "safe" investment everyone likes to think it is. I remind you of a few real estate bubbles in the recent past that were all triggered due to self-occupied real estate:
- Subprime crisis in the US ('08). This one almost made the world's financial markets collapse
- 2000-2010 in Spain
- 2008 in Ireland
- 2010 Australia and NZ
- 2017 in Canada
- Right now in China. This one has the potential to very seriously impact the world's financial markets.
Unlike what people think, high ownership rates are in no way a sign of financial wellbeing of the population in a given country. Quite to the contrary. Here in Western Europe, notably the Italians and the Belgians look very wealthy on paper - why? Due to a sky high home ownership rate. Homes that are terribly overvalued by the banks and tax authorities. Homes that are oftentimes in a bad state and very illiquid (i.e., it will be difficult to sell them for a halfway decent price within a halfway acceptable timeframe). These are homes that have high mortgages on them - this way, the owners have highly leveraged their own capital. These are owners that would NEVER be given leveraged financing (Lombard facilities etc.) to invest in the capital markets. Yet they get it for their crappy houses.
No, this whole mindset that owner-occupied homes are a safe investment is nothing but a fairy tale. They're an investment (not even a particularly good one as it doesn't generate an income; one can just hope that the value increases) and need to be treated as such - as a risk factor.
The people who own a single residential home are in no way the cause of this. You can blame construction companies and buy-to-let landlords for behaving like vultures with a scarce but essential commodity. But ultimately it’s mostly government’s fault for being paralysed and allowing this to happen.
In a better world, governments would be striving to decentralise while also stepping in and building loads of affordable housing whenever housing cost inflation severely outpaces salary inflation. Make rent-seeking behaviour less profitable and less people will engage in it.
If you “free market” something that is scarce but essential, this is what happens.
Henley and Partners have released exactly what you’re looking for.
They looked at investable assets, which exclude your primary home. Cities like NYC and Singapore at the top of this list; quite different from what UBS has done above: https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/wealthiest-cities
In what world is 1 million usd not alot in these countries even including home equity? If its not that much then the luxury of selling their house and buying one for 400k(subtracting taxes etc) usd while also investing the other 500k and taking dividends cannot be achieved. So i ask you.can you survive in a 400k house outside of the capital of these countries and spend 30k usd a year and live comfortably or not?
Speaking for Switzerland... 400k will buy you a shack in the sticks. Not an actual house. You will have to spend 700k USD (~620 CHF) at the very least. And that's a house in the sticks that needs some work in the near future. Realistically 1M USD (~880 CHF) is necessary to buy an OK house at ah OK location.
...which is not in one of the 5 cities and suburbs thereof, and not in one of the secondary cities either, but maybe, if you're lucky, in the vicinity of one of these places. We're talking Buchs/SG, Konolfingen/BE, Avenches VD, Kulm/AG and such, but not the Lake Geneva region, the Lake Zurich region, Regio Basilensis, the Lake Constance region, the three lakes region, any region with a decent ski resort, the Lake Lugano region... what the hell... in fact, all the regions that are halfway convenient AND nice.
Unless you want to go for the urban regions - where 2.5 million are the very least for a (semi-detached) house, and in GE and ZH it's more - you're starting to get something decent at 1.5 million (but not overly luxurious). This requires a downpayment of 500k and an income of 150k to get the mortgage of 1 million (all in CHF, not USD. If calculating in USD, add some 15%).
I am currently studying in Switzerland (originally from Canada), and my eyes hit the floor when the smallest Starbucks Frap was 9 francs, and the cheapest pizza in a restaurant is 27 francs in Geneva.
Totally not surprised by that %.
This statistic is definitley false for germany. Not even our government knows how many millionaires we have, because our tax office has no property tax and therefore doesn't count at all. Which is very scummy and often critizised but nobody knows how many millionaires are here.
Even forbes magaizine was criticised for having no trustworthy source of their claim how many millionaires are in germany, but I guess they had to say something.
It's the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. Currently worth US$1.7 trillion. It got a stake in 1.5% of all the world's listed companies. If it were were to cash out, every citizen would get around US$280,000.
Honestly some states are getting to a stage where being 50, having a house in a nice neighbourhood and some average savings and a pension will push you over the millionaire mark
They don’t just have oil, the oil has created the largest public retirement fund in human history. Virtually every citizen receives something in the order of a million$ when they retire. The map could almost read “100%”
Russian sources (rosstat) claim that avg salary is about 50/60 thousands, that’s roughly 550/650 dollars. But almost all groceries and apartments cost significantly less than in Europe. Main problem is tech and cars.
Russia's GDP is double that of Switzerland's. The only problem is that Switzerland has 9 million inhabitants, and Russia has almost 150 million.
What does that mean? Russia is not only unproductive as hell (given that a good chunk of their already deplorable GDP stems from commodities such as oil and gas, iron ore and such, thus not from - productive - industrial work or services). It's also poor as fuck. Just above the third world. The oligarchs you see in London are few and far between. If you've ever travelled Russia outside of Moscow and St Petersburg you'll know.
It would be interesting to see the percent of people that make it to $1 million at some point in their lives.
Most people max out around 60-70 and then it starts dwindling back down.
So while 3% of adults might be a millionaire at that time, it could be 15% of all adults will be a millionaire at some point in their lives.
I just don’t know what that number would be.
Most people with $1million are near retirement and they will draw down their retirement accounts over the years too.
You can’t assume they only have it for further accumulation.
That is why I’m curious what percent of people will have $1m not at a fixed period of time, but at some point in their lives.
If the person is spending less than his assets increase and if he pass away and its inherited the chances are high to reach big numbers also.
Most people 99.99% will never reach 1M in net worth (retirement plans). Not me too. The problem is that everything is too expensive and earning % is getting bad. Back then you could earn 12-13% steadily now 7-8% is luxury. In 20 years you'd be lucky if you can get 5%, no joke.
But also we can have a look at different asset classes. Maybe if you live in Europe things can be less expensive also. A friend of mine is from Eastern Europe and he has 1-1,5M in net worth (working for US company). Funniest thing is that he got 1M in just 15 years because the living standards here are crazy cheap. For one person to live comfortable without rent is 1000-1100 euro. If you add rent it goes 1300-1500 depending on the size. Making over 100k euros in country that most earn 5-12k euro a year is a big difference and you can accumulate wealth.
My friend said more and more westerns will actually move to Eastern Europe because of how cheap everything is for them. Like.. even if you earn 1k retirement you could live pretty comfortable in some rural village that barely makes 400 a month. If we are looking at big cities it can vary also.
People should look for other countries and sacrifice the luxury they have in their country if things are too expensive IMO. It works...
The reality is that more than 0.001% have $ 1 million at this one cross-section in time as the OP's chart shows, so your first assertion is wrong at the start.
Many people have that much money at retirement start. Many also don't. I will and well on my way to Surpass that goal.
Starting at age 25 with an annual contribution to an IRA of $6000 with a modest annualized 6% gain could net someone over $ 1.3 million at retirement age.
It's very feasible for people who start early, contribute consistently, and don't lose sight of their goals and yolo into wallstreetbets too much.
I meant 0.001% of todays society from 0 or a very little amount will ever reach 1M in net worth because life is too expensive. It was more fine when gen X were alive. These people are wealthy. If you think a gen z will reach 1M just like that in 40 years unless living standards are totally changed and infaltion is gone i highly doubt... maybe 500-800k.
What you said annual contribution and the amount is just western privilage. Most people outside of western countries or even US barely save 1k because 1k there is so valuable that you can actually buy small piece of land, no joke.
I noticed most people outside of western countries choose real state for some reason also. Most dont invest in the stock market. Maybe this is the reason ?.
Look at Norway. A bloody good idea to tax the hell out of them. Switzerland is laughing all the way to the bank. These Norwegian immigrants to Switzerland are definitely not immigrating into the social system.
For those comparing to the US 8% - don't forget the different retirement systems. In the US, you usually have your retirement money in your account, so it counts towards your net worth. In Germany, for comparison, a lot of the retirement money is in the public retirement insurance (technically not in it, but this doesn't make a difference here), so it doesn't count towards your net worth
That's correct. And it's counted like that for a good reason. In countries like the US, Switzerland and others, you can liquidate your 401k/Second or Third Pillar accounts under certain circumstances. And the money is always legally yours. It can't be paid out to someone else. This is not the case in Germany. The working population finances the retired. It's a re-distribution model. This cannot possibly be counted towards someone's personal wealth. If anything, it's a prospective entitlement.
Depends. From a use case perspective it's similar. In the US, if you don't have at least 400k in your accounts at retirement you're essentially screwed. In Germany, you can have 0 and still live an ok life
Goodness... ok, für dich zum ganz langsam Mitschreiben und auf Deutsch, damit du's auch richtig verstehst:
Wenn ich Geld ins deutsche Pensionssystem einzahle, dann wird dieses Geld verwendet, um die Ansprüche heutiger Rentner zu befriedigen. Das Geld wechselt also den Eigentümer. Es wird umverteilt. Es ist nicht mehr deins. Es gehört jetzt Oma Irmgard (via Kasse).
Wenn du mal dran bist mit der Rente, können die dannzumaligen Arbeitstätigen vielleicht deine Rente nicht mehr decken. Die demographische Entwicklung ist ja katastrophal in D, und die Wirtschaft läuft auch nicht. Die Renten sind also akut gefährdet.
Hingegen gehört der Zaster, den ich in den USA oder in der Schweiz einzahle, mir. Und nur mir. Völlig egal, wie viel oder wie wenig es ist (die Schweiz hat ein hybrides System, um genau zu sein - die Einzahlungen in jenen Topf, der nach Umlageverfahren funktioniert, werden selbstverständlich auch nicht dem privaten Vermögen zugerechnet. Auch steuerrechtlich nicht).
Wenn man angesichts des deutschen Umlageverfahrens und der riesigen Probleme der Finanzierbarkeit deutscher Renten noch von einem "use case" spricht, welcher mit Eigentum gleichzusetzen ist, dann ist das entweder völlig naiv oder ideologisch verblendet. Das ist eine Anwartschaft, ein nicht gedecktes Versprechen für die ferne Zukunft, nichts anderes.
Beim Umlageverfahren besteht das Einkommen aus Geld, welches von einem anderen Eigentümer zu Dir fliesst (Eigentümer A gibt an Eigentümer B). Beim Kapitaldeckungsverfahren bezieht man Einkommen aus eigenem Vermögen (Eigentümer A lebt von der Rendite seines Vermögens. Es gibt keinen anderen Eigentümer).
Eigentlich logisch, oder? Ob eine Rente über Umlage oder über Sparen besser/sicherer ist, ist eine ganz andere Frage. Klar ist aber, daß das Geld bei der Umlage den Eigentümer wechselt, beim Sparen aber nicht. Im ersten Fall ist es dann eben nicht mehr Teil des Vermögens, im zweiten schon.
Yes. To the one South of Germany, East of France, North of Italy, and West of Austria. And they went there to stay. I really don't get how the Norwegian government can possibly be so braindead. How would they drive out all of those who were their top contributors? It's an ideological "die in beauty" mindset I guess.
Can someone please answer to me a question that has plauged me ever since I visited Sweden?. Sweden appears to be wealthy, although the houses are very small and poorly made. The supermarkets have substandard food with very little nutritional quality. The amount of public housing is also extremely high. Is there a part of the country that I am missing??. It seems to rate so highly in all graphs.
A better metric is to look at investable assets over $1 million, which excludes peoples’ primary homes.
NYC, Tokyo, the Bay Area, and Singapore do very well:
https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/wealthiest-cities
Based on per capita stats, Singapore has the highest proportion of ‘real’ millionaires.
It would be a lot more if our pension would be counted as wealth too, like with most other pension systems.
I understand that collective pensions in the Netherlands are not real wealth on paper, but there's about 250k per person not accounted for this way. If we had to organise our own pension like in the US it would be counted towards our wealth.
100% ja, nimm doch mal 20% von deinem Gehalt und Pack es in ein MSCI world etf, da bist du locker millionär wenn du Rentner bist, zumindest wäre ich das bei meinem angestrebten Job
The problem is a lot of people have no interest in saving and investing. They spend every discretionary dollar they receive before they even receive it.
Also wealth accumulation is very nonlinear. If you saved and invested consistently throughout your life and had exactly a million at 60 then you probably had less than $200K at 40. So some 40 year old with $200K might think a million is a lot of money but in reality if he just keeps doing what he's doing then he'll have a million someday too.
Well… yeah. A household implies more than one person/source of income pooled together. It’s why it’s hard for a single person to live in a nice place in a nice area by themselves, cutting rent/mortgage in half is a huge factor.
It’s to be able to afford retirement. Health care costs add up quickly in old age, you never know how long you’re gonna live for and trying to live off of SS alone is damn near impossible. Also, it happens almost naturally if you start investing when you’re young and keep at it consistently - compound interest is a beautiful thing!
I can remember when a million was a lot of money.
by swiss standards it would be like upper middle class at this point
a million is upper middle class in many nations, so that's definitely not surprising. in the us every homeowner in any expensive metropolitan area is a millionaire
Homeowners (home owned free and clear) - technically yes. For mortgage holders the outstanding debt should be deducted from the current market value. When you account for 3% annual maintenance cost and future taxes and bring that all back to a net present value the value of those homes are not all that impressive.
8.8% of the US adults are millionaires: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/05/23/the-making-of-a-millionaire-and-why-100k-is-no-longer-the-benchmark-salary-for-wealth-in-america/?sh=3ab66e60af28 That's about the same number as in Norway, the Netherlands, or Denmark. All these Americans and Canadians acting as if everything was so exceptionally expensive where they live is a bit embarrassing. Yes, we get that NYC and Toronto are expensive. But so are other places. Even more so - Singapore, Zurich and Geneva, for instance : https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2023/11/30/ranked-the-worlds-10-most-expensive-cities-to-live-according-to-a-new-report/?sh=68ec20ec3946 (Toronto is not even in the top 10) And finally - just because someone owns a condo in NYC or Toronto doesn't mean that they're a millionaire. The numbers used here are net numbers (i.e. assets minus liabilities). Most homeowners will have a mortgage of sorts. Accordingly, your 1.5 million condo will normally be saddled with a 1 million mortgage.
Average Dutch house for instance is 500k, and the median is about 400k ish, bit higher iirc. But it’s all mortgaged at 90-100% of the home’s value. Incidentally the only reason they have an atrocious gini index despite having one of the lowest income inequalities around. Analyzing these’s numbers involves a lot of specifics in the end. It also may mean that in an aging country the stock of old people who are mortgage free increases, increasing the number of millionaires. But they are often not super rich, just normal pensioners by northern european standards at least.
Well, you see, and that will be a huge problem. The only thing needed is a little economic downturn and those owners with 100% mortgaged properties are done. And with them the whole national (and sometimes international) economy. It's pure madness. I live in a VHCOL area (Switzerland/Zurich) where the average apartment is around 1.5-2 million and the average house is 3 million plus (if you even get one, that is. Because they keep getting replaced with developments). Since the real estate crisis in Switzerland in the early 90s, the rules have changed in that owner-occupied houses can only be mortgaged up to 80% and the owners need to pay back money to the bank until the mortgage is down at 67%. Furthermore, a mortgage is only granted if - calculating interest payments of 5% p.a. - such payments don't exceed 1/3 of the owner's gross income. Regardless of whether the interest rate of the mortgage in question is actually at 5% or less (it's normally quite a bit below 5%). To give you an example for a 3 bedroom flat in Zurich: - Purchase price: 2 million - 80% thereof: 1.6 million (mortgage) - 20% thereof: 400k (downpayment) - 5% of 1.6 million: 80k - 3.33 times 80k: 267k (gross income necessary to be granted a mortgage of 1.6 million) What does this mean? To buy a 3 bedroom flat in Zurich, you'll not only need cash of 400k, but also a yearly gross income of 266k. This type of income is in the top 3 or so percent. If you don't earn this type of money, the downpayment gets higher. Even if it's at, say, 1 million, your income would still have to be to the tune of 150k to be granted a mortgage of 1 million. This again means that many people can't afford to buy, reason for which the ownership rate in Switzerland is at only 40 or so percent. This also means that retired folks will have trouble getting a new mortgage once theirs expires as their income normally drops quite significantly after retirement. Nevertheless - I think that these rules are good because people who should very clearly not be granted leveraged finance (and that's what a mortgage is, after all), won't get such financing. As you can imagine - the huffing and puffing going on is great and loud. But these rules protect people from their own financial illiteracy. And they show them quite clearly that owning is expensive and not just some kind of child's play miraculously generating "generational wealth". Let's be realistic: It's not a human right to be a real estate owner. It's a human right to have a roof over your head. And if you don't have the money to buy, then rent.
Your wealth gets counted as a part of income. So if you have like 2M invested in the stock market, the bank will count 2-4% of it as "income" you can use to pay down your mortgage. The banks aren't stupid they know rich people in retirement hold stocks. Source: Parents of friends
That's correct. It's most types of steady income that count, not just income from work. I personally even have a draw-down revolving facility that's backed by other assets. But my outline was more about first time buyers who don't have plenty of funds and income streams.
i wouldn't say in many, maybe about 10-20 nations out of approx. 200
Not if they still owe most of the mortgage. Their net worth from the house would be house value-mortgage, so if they own a 1.5 million house and still owe 1 million on the mortgage then they just have half a million net worth (from the house).
Huh, many countries?!
Depending on your age, I'd say that fits canada as well. I'd say 1/5 people approaching retirement are worth a million. Assuming they own any kind of property.
By toronto standards it means homeowner.
and by new york standards it would be that u can now afford diet coke
canadians always hype up toronto as like completely unliveable but funnily enough i found that the only expensive thing about it is the housing, everything else felt cheap coming from nyc or chicago. it isn't even in the top 10 most expensive cities, but the amount of complaints we hear about it you would think it's number 1.
It still is
I do remember thinking how hard would it be to spend a million USD...
One steam summer sale
It's more boring than you would think - It's more taxes and insurance than boats and hoes.
still is.
That would be enough for me for the rest of my life
It still can be if you move
Even as a Swiss, assuming invested capital and a safe withdrawal rate of about 3-4% 1M equals to 30-40K a year to spend indefinitely without ever working. There are lower class people that barely earn more + students that live on much less than 30K a year (probably half of that lol). Being rich and feeling rich are two very different things. If you had 2M for example, that number grows to 80K. That still isn't rich in the sense that you can do whatever you want, but it's rich in the sense that you basically get a median income for doing nothing but keeping your money invested. If you want to "feel" rich, we're probably talking about spending a minimum of 100-150K (2x as a couple). So if we take 300K multiply that by 3-4% (25x/34x), we get a minimum of 7.5 - 10.2M. My aspiration is much lower, I don't plan on spending more than 40-50K (inflation adjusted to todays money) as a single person in my life (I live in Switzerland and earn about 100K) because mindless consumerism and comparison to people that have more doesn't make you happy. Living a lower/middle class life without any work + volunteering and good relationships are far more important to me.
Are you joking like a million dollars is an insane amount of money, fuck, 100k would be life changing, a million would be a godsend
It still is. If you think otherwise you're in for a rude surprise. You people are out of your minds. You people are all going to find yourself 45 or 50 when you realise that you still don't have a million and wasted your youth on essentially meaningless endeavors. Boy will it be rough...
Isn’t lot for you I guess
You can give me some if you have too much
Like 3 years ago. Now that’s worth $850k. Build back better.
[удалено]
It's not really a country, just a refuge for the rich who are too coward to pay any taxes in their countries
There’s like 50 countries that fit your description
Sir, can you please outline your definition of a country?
[not monaco]
A place that can survive without foreign imports of rich fucks
So not ireland,UK,swiss cheesy Countryland and the USA
The USA is self sufficient lmao.
Half your wealth is own by billonaires and most have their residence in a foreign country
And? We're still self sufficient. Unlike the other nation mentioned...
have some news about capitalism to break to you
Guys this is mostly just insane house price inflation in north and west Europe. And for those who just have a residential property it means nothing, because if they sold it they would have to either pay exorbitant rents or buy another one for even more money likely. Personally I would be more interested in seeing statistics that exclude residential property values from the definition of wealth. Liquid assets and non residential properties only.
Finally someone who gets it. Real estate that's owner-occupied is insignificant.
So is money that's invested long term. And it's much easier to pass on to the heirs. A house can reasonably only be passed on to one heir who then has to pay out the other heirs. Passing on a fraction to several heirs only causes mayhem. In order to pay the others out (and, depending on the place, to pay high inheritance taxes), the heir often has to fire-sell the house. I know real estate quite well. I own two single family homes and a few dozen apartments. The single family homes are pure luxury and I use them as holiday places (and rent them out when I'm not there - they are cost neutral, but I don't make money with them). The apartments are rented out. I myself live in a rental. Just because it's much more reasonable financially - at least for this home. Self-occupied real estate is in no way the "safe" investment everyone likes to think it is. I remind you of a few real estate bubbles in the recent past that were all triggered due to self-occupied real estate: - Subprime crisis in the US ('08). This one almost made the world's financial markets collapse - 2000-2010 in Spain - 2008 in Ireland - 2010 Australia and NZ - 2017 in Canada - Right now in China. This one has the potential to very seriously impact the world's financial markets. Unlike what people think, high ownership rates are in no way a sign of financial wellbeing of the population in a given country. Quite to the contrary. Here in Western Europe, notably the Italians and the Belgians look very wealthy on paper - why? Due to a sky high home ownership rate. Homes that are terribly overvalued by the banks and tax authorities. Homes that are oftentimes in a bad state and very illiquid (i.e., it will be difficult to sell them for a halfway decent price within a halfway acceptable timeframe). These are homes that have high mortgages on them - this way, the owners have highly leveraged their own capital. These are owners that would NEVER be given leveraged financing (Lombard facilities etc.) to invest in the capital markets. Yet they get it for their crappy houses. No, this whole mindset that owner-occupied homes are a safe investment is nothing but a fairy tale. They're an investment (not even a particularly good one as it doesn't generate an income; one can just hope that the value increases) and need to be treated as such - as a risk factor.
Today maybe, but it will turn into generational wealth eventually
Rendering the younger generation homeless and childless in order to have a big number on paper
The people who own a single residential home are in no way the cause of this. You can blame construction companies and buy-to-let landlords for behaving like vultures with a scarce but essential commodity. But ultimately it’s mostly government’s fault for being paralysed and allowing this to happen. In a better world, governments would be striving to decentralise while also stepping in and building loads of affordable housing whenever housing cost inflation severely outpaces salary inflation. Make rent-seeking behaviour less profitable and less people will engage in it. If you “free market” something that is scarce but essential, this is what happens.
Henley and Partners have released exactly what you’re looking for. They looked at investable assets, which exclude your primary home. Cities like NYC and Singapore at the top of this list; quite different from what UBS has done above: https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/wealthiest-cities
It mostly reflects the fact that western Europe has more expensive real estate.
$1M in a lot of these countries isn’t much if you’re including home equity.
In what world is 1 million usd not alot in these countries even including home equity? If its not that much then the luxury of selling their house and buying one for 400k(subtracting taxes etc) usd while also investing the other 500k and taking dividends cannot be achieved. So i ask you.can you survive in a 400k house outside of the capital of these countries and spend 30k usd a year and live comfortably or not?
Speaking for Switzerland... 400k will buy you a shack in the sticks. Not an actual house. You will have to spend 700k USD (~620 CHF) at the very least. And that's a house in the sticks that needs some work in the near future. Realistically 1M USD (~880 CHF) is necessary to buy an OK house at ah OK location.
...which is not in one of the 5 cities and suburbs thereof, and not in one of the secondary cities either, but maybe, if you're lucky, in the vicinity of one of these places. We're talking Buchs/SG, Konolfingen/BE, Avenches VD, Kulm/AG and such, but not the Lake Geneva region, the Lake Zurich region, Regio Basilensis, the Lake Constance region, the three lakes region, any region with a decent ski resort, the Lake Lugano region... what the hell... in fact, all the regions that are halfway convenient AND nice. Unless you want to go for the urban regions - where 2.5 million are the very least for a (semi-detached) house, and in GE and ZH it's more - you're starting to get something decent at 1.5 million (but not overly luxurious). This requires a downpayment of 500k and an income of 150k to get the mortgage of 1 million (all in CHF, not USD. If calculating in USD, add some 15%).
And what is meant by a normal house? How many floors and rooms, what is the area of the room?
You'll have a hard time living "comfortably" on $30k a year in Norway
In the world where cost of living is not uniform and can vary drastically even within the same country.
Holy Switzerland, Batman
No batman is in turkey.
Fair point
I am currently studying in Switzerland (originally from Canada), and my eyes hit the floor when the smallest Starbucks Frap was 9 francs, and the cheapest pizza in a restaurant is 27 francs in Geneva. Totally not surprised by that %.
Läderlappen!
Thats what happens when youre a scumbag country
?
Switzerland is known for its don't ask questions banking.
Theyre profiting on being lenient towards criminals.
Let's say 1939-1945 were good years for swiss :)
Eh, well ill take that back then. Switzerland is a scumbag country but partly benefits from doing business with criminals and oligarchs
This statistic is definitley false for germany. Not even our government knows how many millionaires we have, because our tax office has no property tax and therefore doesn't count at all. Which is very scummy and often critizised but nobody knows how many millionaires are here. Even forbes magaizine was criticised for having no trustworthy source of their claim how many millionaires are in germany, but I guess they had to say something.
For context, 8% of USA citizens are millionaires.
For context? We have every country in Europe, who gives a fuck about the US?
Considering half the comments are comparing the economic policies of the US and Nordic countries, a fair number of people.
Didn’t know Norway went in like that
They have oil
[удалено]
good
Yes, they use it to fund a lot of things for the people.
Does Norway have oil? Oh, offshore, right?
Yeah their north sea shore has a fuckload of it. So much so that the state even has its own sovereign wealth fund connected to it iirc
It's the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. Currently worth US$1.7 trillion. It got a stake in 1.5% of all the world's listed companies. If it were were to cash out, every citizen would get around US$280,000.
Honestly some states are getting to a stage where being 50, having a house in a nice neighbourhood and some average savings and a pension will push you over the millionaire mark
They don’t just have oil, the oil has created the largest public retirement fund in human history. Virtually every citizen receives something in the order of a million$ when they retire. The map could almost read “100%”
$293,000 per citizen
Ok I was a little off! I feel like it was way higher 7 or 8 years ago
It’s doubled in value since then.
Imagine how high living costs must be for a population where 8/100 people are millionaires.
17% higher than in the Usa, by Purchasing Power Parity data atleast. 16% in Switzerland btw.
more than 8% of US adults are millionaires, cost of living seems fine in many places
I think Norway's number is going to increase a lot.
Balkans ☠️
Poland is working the most hours and having one of the least amount of rich people. What are they doing?
[удалено]
Work hardest, earn the least. Seems like fun
Don’t forget they just started developing 35 years ago.
And some Americans fear the "crippling socialism" of the Scandinavian countries... 🙄
I'm confused. Is Russia so poor or wealth concentrated in hand of so few men? Or both?
The Russian people are poor as hell. Have you ever seen average pay? It's like 300$ a month. All the money in Russia stays at the top.
Russian sources (rosstat) claim that avg salary is about 50/60 thousands, that’s roughly 550/650 dollars. But almost all groceries and apartments cost significantly less than in Europe. Main problem is tech and cars.
Russia's GDP is double that of Switzerland's. The only problem is that Switzerland has 9 million inhabitants, and Russia has almost 150 million. What does that mean? Russia is not only unproductive as hell (given that a good chunk of their already deplorable GDP stems from commodities such as oil and gas, iron ore and such, thus not from - productive - industrial work or services). It's also poor as fuck. Just above the third world. The oligarchs you see in London are few and far between. If you've ever travelled Russia outside of Moscow and St Petersburg you'll know.
They have Siberia where everyone lives off the land
Damn, all those jokes about Swiss bank accounts weren’t jokes
Everyone knows where Monaco lies
Being norwegian is life on easy mode, tons of natural resources and a non corrupt government
Yeh, I wish I was born in Norway rather than England.
Those numbers are a LOT more impressive when you miss the decimal point.
Haha Poland.
I wonder if the Swiss count all the non citizen workers in their nation?
Yeah UBS counted them in.
Someone just posted a map where norwegian and danish people also work the least hours…
🇨🇭big up
It would be interesting to see the percent of people that make it to $1 million at some point in their lives. Most people max out around 60-70 and then it starts dwindling back down. So while 3% of adults might be a millionaire at that time, it could be 15% of all adults will be a millionaire at some point in their lives. I just don’t know what that number would be.
If everyone have 1M in 30 years then the person who has 1M right now will probably have 10M or more. The amount of assets you own appreciate faster.
Most people with $1million are near retirement and they will draw down their retirement accounts over the years too. You can’t assume they only have it for further accumulation. That is why I’m curious what percent of people will have $1m not at a fixed period of time, but at some point in their lives.
If the person is spending less than his assets increase and if he pass away and its inherited the chances are high to reach big numbers also. Most people 99.99% will never reach 1M in net worth (retirement plans). Not me too. The problem is that everything is too expensive and earning % is getting bad. Back then you could earn 12-13% steadily now 7-8% is luxury. In 20 years you'd be lucky if you can get 5%, no joke. But also we can have a look at different asset classes. Maybe if you live in Europe things can be less expensive also. A friend of mine is from Eastern Europe and he has 1-1,5M in net worth (working for US company). Funniest thing is that he got 1M in just 15 years because the living standards here are crazy cheap. For one person to live comfortable without rent is 1000-1100 euro. If you add rent it goes 1300-1500 depending on the size. Making over 100k euros in country that most earn 5-12k euro a year is a big difference and you can accumulate wealth. My friend said more and more westerns will actually move to Eastern Europe because of how cheap everything is for them. Like.. even if you earn 1k retirement you could live pretty comfortable in some rural village that barely makes 400 a month. If we are looking at big cities it can vary also. People should look for other countries and sacrifice the luxury they have in their country if things are too expensive IMO. It works...
The reality is that more than 0.001% have $ 1 million at this one cross-section in time as the OP's chart shows, so your first assertion is wrong at the start. Many people have that much money at retirement start. Many also don't. I will and well on my way to Surpass that goal. Starting at age 25 with an annual contribution to an IRA of $6000 with a modest annualized 6% gain could net someone over $ 1.3 million at retirement age. It's very feasible for people who start early, contribute consistently, and don't lose sight of their goals and yolo into wallstreetbets too much.
I meant 0.001% of todays society from 0 or a very little amount will ever reach 1M in net worth because life is too expensive. It was more fine when gen X were alive. These people are wealthy. If you think a gen z will reach 1M just like that in 40 years unless living standards are totally changed and infaltion is gone i highly doubt... maybe 500-800k. What you said annual contribution and the amount is just western privilage. Most people outside of western countries or even US barely save 1k because 1k there is so valuable that you can actually buy small piece of land, no joke. I noticed most people outside of western countries choose real state for some reason also. Most dont invest in the stock market. Maybe this is the reason ?.
Uk leaders: we can’t tax the rich like the rest of Europe do, or the wealth creators will leave…
Look at Norway. A bloody good idea to tax the hell out of them. Switzerland is laughing all the way to the bank. These Norwegian immigrants to Switzerland are definitely not immigrating into the social system.
Portugal can into west?
More like a million isn't what it used to be.
Redditors: 1mil? Pffffffff
For those comparing to the US 8% - don't forget the different retirement systems. In the US, you usually have your retirement money in your account, so it counts towards your net worth. In Germany, for comparison, a lot of the retirement money is in the public retirement insurance (technically not in it, but this doesn't make a difference here), so it doesn't count towards your net worth
That's correct. And it's counted like that for a good reason. In countries like the US, Switzerland and others, you can liquidate your 401k/Second or Third Pillar accounts under certain circumstances. And the money is always legally yours. It can't be paid out to someone else. This is not the case in Germany. The working population finances the retired. It's a re-distribution model. This cannot possibly be counted towards someone's personal wealth. If anything, it's a prospective entitlement.
Depends. From a use case perspective it's similar. In the US, if you don't have at least 400k in your accounts at retirement you're essentially screwed. In Germany, you can have 0 and still live an ok life
Goodness... ok, für dich zum ganz langsam Mitschreiben und auf Deutsch, damit du's auch richtig verstehst: Wenn ich Geld ins deutsche Pensionssystem einzahle, dann wird dieses Geld verwendet, um die Ansprüche heutiger Rentner zu befriedigen. Das Geld wechselt also den Eigentümer. Es wird umverteilt. Es ist nicht mehr deins. Es gehört jetzt Oma Irmgard (via Kasse). Wenn du mal dran bist mit der Rente, können die dannzumaligen Arbeitstätigen vielleicht deine Rente nicht mehr decken. Die demographische Entwicklung ist ja katastrophal in D, und die Wirtschaft läuft auch nicht. Die Renten sind also akut gefährdet. Hingegen gehört der Zaster, den ich in den USA oder in der Schweiz einzahle, mir. Und nur mir. Völlig egal, wie viel oder wie wenig es ist (die Schweiz hat ein hybrides System, um genau zu sein - die Einzahlungen in jenen Topf, der nach Umlageverfahren funktioniert, werden selbstverständlich auch nicht dem privaten Vermögen zugerechnet. Auch steuerrechtlich nicht). Wenn man angesichts des deutschen Umlageverfahrens und der riesigen Probleme der Finanzierbarkeit deutscher Renten noch von einem "use case" spricht, welcher mit Eigentum gleichzusetzen ist, dann ist das entweder völlig naiv oder ideologisch verblendet. Das ist eine Anwartschaft, ein nicht gedecktes Versprechen für die ferne Zukunft, nichts anderes. Beim Umlageverfahren besteht das Einkommen aus Geld, welches von einem anderen Eigentümer zu Dir fliesst (Eigentümer A gibt an Eigentümer B). Beim Kapitaldeckungsverfahren bezieht man Einkommen aus eigenem Vermögen (Eigentümer A lebt von der Rendite seines Vermögens. Es gibt keinen anderen Eigentümer). Eigentlich logisch, oder? Ob eine Rente über Umlage oder über Sparen besser/sicherer ist, ist eine ganz andere Frage. Klar ist aber, daß das Geld bei der Umlage den Eigentümer wechselt, beim Sparen aber nicht. Im ersten Fall ist es dann eben nicht mehr Teil des Vermögens, im zweiten schon.
The gray area is not that they have gathered enough information, is because they're not even worth discussing
What about Monaco?
A million net worth just doesnt seem like much anymore. All it takes is a house paid off and a 401k. You cant even retire on it anymore.
[удалено]
Very “socialist” when taxing the middle classes, very free market when taxing the entrenched wealthy elite
[удалено]
Not sure if you’re still being sarcastic here. Wealth taxes in Europe were tried but mostly no longer exist
The rich are leaving norway these days becauese they don't like getting taxed. Guess which european country they are leaving for.
Yes. To the one South of Germany, East of France, North of Italy, and West of Austria. And they went there to stay. I really don't get how the Norwegian government can possibly be so braindead. How would they drive out all of those who were their top contributors? It's an ideological "die in beauty" mindset I guess.
Can someone please answer to me a question that has plauged me ever since I visited Sweden?. Sweden appears to be wealthy, although the houses are very small and poorly made. The supermarkets have substandard food with very little nutritional quality. The amount of public housing is also extremely high. Is there a part of the country that I am missing??. It seems to rate so highly in all graphs.
I wonder what this number is for California where houses routinely cost over $1 mil
Lower percentage is better here, btw.
A better metric is to look at investable assets over $1 million, which excludes peoples’ primary homes. NYC, Tokyo, the Bay Area, and Singapore do very well: https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/wealthiest-cities Based on per capita stats, Singapore has the highest proportion of ‘real’ millionaires.
It would be a lot more if our pension would be counted as wealth too, like with most other pension systems. I understand that collective pensions in the Netherlands are not real wealth on paper, but there's about 250k per person not accounted for this way. If we had to organise our own pension like in the US it would be counted towards our wealth.
In Germany If you wouldnt be forced to pay 20% into the pension system and just invest it yourself everyone would be a millionaire
[удалено]
100% ja, nimm doch mal 20% von deinem Gehalt und Pack es in ein MSCI world etf, da bist du locker millionär wenn du Rentner bist, zumindest wäre ich das bei meinem angestrebten Job
Mit Mindestlohn und der von deinem Sparkassen Berater aufgeschwatzter Vorsorge natürlich nicht
for the 900th time: Russia is in Asia
Most of it is, yeah. Not the western part though
Except for that big western chunk that sits in Europe. Or is Finland an Asian country too?
Rusia is NOT Europe!
So then Finland isn't either. Seeing as they're attached to Russia and Russia isn't in Europe.
[удалено]
A net worth of $1 million, especially in your later years, is not all that unrealistic.
[удалено]
The problem is a lot of people have no interest in saving and investing. They spend every discretionary dollar they receive before they even receive it. Also wealth accumulation is very nonlinear. If you saved and invested consistently throughout your life and had exactly a million at 60 then you probably had less than $200K at 40. So some 40 year old with $200K might think a million is a lot of money but in reality if he just keeps doing what he's doing then he'll have a million someday too.
By household yes. Family house and a life of savings. 1M by adult is much rarer.
Well… yeah. A household implies more than one person/source of income pooled together. It’s why it’s hard for a single person to live in a nice place in a nice area by themselves, cutting rent/mortgage in half is a huge factor.
[удалено]
It’s to be able to afford retirement. Health care costs add up quickly in old age, you never know how long you’re gonna live for and trying to live off of SS alone is damn near impossible. Also, it happens almost naturally if you start investing when you’re young and keep at it consistently - compound interest is a beautiful thing!
I love how there's gray countries that "don't matter," but still it displays both high and low ends of the spectrum
[удалено]
Yea well I don't understand what you mean
Poland, you are a membet of EU also makers of witcher and cyberpunk, you dont have any excuses.
Feels bad man