How many millionaires on a world?

[rancke]

Does anyone have any notions of how to guesstimate the number of millionaires on a world? We have ways to establish the size of the population and the per capita income. But if we take, for example, a world with 700 million inhabitants and a per capita income of Cr25,600 (that's TL12, Rich according to Striker), how many of the citizens will own a million credits or more? And of that number, how many will own ten million or more, hundred million or more, etc., etc.?

I realize that the social pyramid can be steeper or flatter on one world and another, but what about coming up with a ballpark figure?

I'm completely at sea on this one. Any ideas? Suggestions? Full-fledged rules and tables?


Hans

 

[aramis]

Well... looking at some sources of per capita numbers:
http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_millionaires_household.htm
http://images.businessweek.com/slid...he-highest-proportion-of-millionaires#slide21

The top 20 nations run 1.4% (Canada) to 15.5 (Singapore)
US States run 2.15% to 4.13

Running the numbers (using a spreadsheet), I find a 0.83 correlation between the rate and the median income. I get roughly 0.1% per $1592 as a best fit, and it DOES look near-linear.

 

[Enoki]

If by "millionare" you mean ultra-rich persons it usually runs 1 to 2% of the population using round figures.

 

[BytePro]

I'd say it would depend on government & law type - look at the % of world population vs % of GDP for individual countries and there are huge disparities - just like there would be for different systems and worlds.

As to RW figures - see https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/data/_product_documents/_shop/368327/2012_global_wealth_report.pdf

And take them with a grain of salt... the graphs look nice and neat - and that is invariable because someone just did a little 'curve-fitting'. In other words, they cheated - who's going to check their numbers anyway?

Note too that the charts below (from 2010 I suspect) reflect est. adult population, so, global millionaires would actually be ~0.3% of the entire population.(assuming 7 billion).

Note the nice curve as that is how it was 'extrapolated'. In this case the supplying website says as much (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/detailed-look-global-wealth-distribution).

 

[BillDowns]

And don't forget that some places will become a playground for the rich and famous, like Palm Springs, or Telluride, or Monte Carlo, etc.

I seem to recall a novel where some ultra-rich had a system to themselves, living on asteroids. Each asteroid had but 1 owner, of course, and the poorest resident was a billionaire or multi-billionaire. May have been John Grimes novel - can't recall much about it, though. It's been too long.

 

[Carlobrand]

...Note too that the charts below (from 2010 I suspect) reflect est. adult population, so, global millionaires would actually be ~0.3% of the entire population.(assuming 7 billion).

But why would you want to compare the incomes of adult millionaires with the incomes of dependent children and infants? You'd compare him/her to other income earners (or potential earners, in the case of the unemployed). Thus, you wouldn't compare him to the entire world population - only to the population of others who are or could be earning an income, which presumably is the set from which they drew their data.

 

[BytePro]

Because Traveller listings tend to give entire world population.

 

[Carlobrand]

Because Traveller listings tend to give entire world population.

Uh, Traveller gives entire world populations, so ... you're going to compare adults to children? Oh wait, I get it. Millionaire adults out of an entire population. Silly me.

But, if the millionaire's a millionaire, don't his dependent children count as millionaires too? They'll certainly have access to some of his wealth and influence. They may even have trusts and such. I guess it's a question of whether the OP is asking what percentage of the population lives wealthy or what percentage of the population controls wealth.

 

[BytePro]

I originally thought the charts were way wrong because they summed to a world pop of ~4.4 billion and not something closer to 7 billion - till I read that it was looking at adults (so teeny pop-stars don't count I guess!).

In the RW, the charts approach makes sense - but Traveller lacks the fidelity to make that applicable. But, even if one did take this into account, the total number of millionaires would not change (just the numbers percentages relate to - i.e. 10% of adults, vs 5% of total pop with only 50% adults - 6 of 1, half dozen of the other...).

By definition, the OPs question relates to individual wealth. Dependents counting automatically as millionaires wouldn't make sense - consider, if one adult only has a million credits and two dependents - then in total they would each only have 1/3 million => i.e. not be millionaires.

 

[rancke]

I originally thought the charts were way wrong because they summed to a world pop of ~4.4 billion and not something closer to 7 billion - till I read that it was looking at adults (so teeny pop-stars don't count I guess!).

So something around 37% of the population of Earth are minors?

By definition, the OPs question relates to individual wealth. Dependents counting automatically as millionaires wouldn't make sense - consider, if one adult only has a million credits and two dependents - then in total they would each only have 1/3 million => i.e. not be millionaires.

Yes, I agree.

From that neat pyramid graph you posted, it would seem that once you know the number of millionaires-and-up, one third of that would be 10-millionaires-and-up, one third of that would be 100-millionaires-and-up, one third of that would be billionaires-and-up, etc., etc.. Close enough for Traveller world-detailing purposes, anyway.

But how to get the number of millionaires-and-up in the first place? For one thing, the currency has to be a factor. There would be six times as many millionaires in the world in Danish kroner than there are in US$. For another, per capita income would have to factor in somehow.


Hans

 

[BytePro]

37% is probably about right given ~ 65-70 year average life expectancy (M/F) and current population growth rate.

But, note, that life expectancy varies significantly by country - under 40 to over 80, IIRC - and global growth rate has varied significantly over time ~ 2% around 1960, or doubling every 35 years to today's ~1.14%, or doubling every 61 years (China's policies, I suspect having noticeable impact ). Countries like Germany have a negative growth rate (offset by immigration) whereas some African countries currently approach 5% (doubling pop in only less than 15 years)!

But how to get the number of millionaires-and-up in the first place? For one thing, the currency has to be a factor. There would be six times as many millionaires in the world in Danish kroner than there are in US$. For another, per capita income would have to factor in somehow.

Yeah - I think ignoring the fact that this number is going to vary significantly based on 'concentration' of wealth in any given society as well as GDP - pretty much makes any number arbitrary for a given main world/system, and thus quite unbelievable if not merely useless.

However, you might could apply it at the sector level (and compare such) - where the variations in government, law and just plain wealth distribution would tend to even out. I.e. equivalent to lumping the disparate figures from all countries into a global aggregate like the info above.

 

[DeltaX15]

The currency to get your 1E6 measured in has to be Credits.

Running the numbers (using a spreadsheet), I find a 0.83 correlation between the rate and the median income. I get roughly 0.1% per $1592 as a best fit, and it DOES look near-linear.

Lets take this and have a play.

Assumption: the $1592 is in current value USD
Assumption: I read somewhere (can't remember where - may or may not be canon) that Cr1 has the buying power of $1 in 1977.

Web sources tell me that $1 (2012) = $3.04 (1977)

So there is 0.1% in each $1592 / 3.04 = Cr 523.88 of per capita

Per capita income on the planet is 25600

25600 / 523.88 = 48.86

48.86 * 0.1 = 4.886

4.886% of the population are millionaires

 

[aramis]

The currency to get your 1E6 measured in has to be Credits.
[snip]
4.886% of the population are millionaires

Indeed, credits are required, and you didn't find millionaires in credits - you found millionaires in dollars based upon the credit income.

And if it is a linear function, which it appears to be, the conversion from credits to dollars will be just fine, as you convert them both the same...

In fact, using Cr1=$5, the ratio of CrMillionaires to CrAverageIncomeshould be roughly the same as the ratio of $Millionaires to $Income... but there should be 1/5 as many Cr Millionaires as $Millionaires...

So given the baseline Cr25600 hans cites and 0.1% per Cr1592, I get 1.6% of the population.

Which, for a first order approximation, is adequate for our needs. Since we're using a linear equation, tho, we can find those with wealth enough for a scout ship (should they liquidate) by multiplying the divisor by 30 (the cost, in MCr, of a scoutship)... and getting some 0.05% of the population.

Known flaws of this model:

• wealth distribution is not normally linear; it tends to narrow as it approaches the top.
• the initial rate was found by averageing the 50 states as states, not using a weighted average by population.
• the standard deviation is 150+ on that average... so it could reasonably range from Cr1300 to Cr1900 for any given world.

 

[rancke]

So given the baseline Cr25600 Hans cites and 0.1% per Cr1592, I get 1.6% of the population.

It wasn't a baseline, it was an example. I think the baseline should be Cr10,000. To get the number for any other world, you'd just multiply by <world's pci>/10,000, right?

Which, for a first order approximation, is adequate for our needs. Since we're using a linear equation, tho, we can find those with wealth enough for a scout ship (should they liquidate) by multiplying the divisor by 30 (the cost, in MCr, of a scoutship)... and getting some 0.05% of the population.

Known flaws of this model:

[1]wealth distribution is not normally linear; it tends to narrow as it approaches the top.

Probably ignorable for Traveller world detailing purposes, especially if one points that out so that referees can adjust as they like. (Though a reasonably simple way to refine the numbers would be better).

[1]the initial rate was found by averageing the 50 states as states, not using a weighted average by population.

The wealth pyramid BytePro presented was for global wealth. It gives the percentage of millionaires (in US$) as 0.5%, or one in every 200 adults, roughly 1 in 300 for a full population.

(One person of every 300 owns a million dollars or more?!? That figure surprises me quite a lot.)

[3]the standard deviation is 150+ on that average... so it could reasonably range from Cr1300 to Cr2200 for any given world.

You lost me here.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Standard Deviation (σ): that amount of variation ± it from the mean, encompasses 60% of the data set. Taking ±2x the standard deviation gives a 90% range - comparable to a 2d6 throw's 3-11 range.

So using a divisor of Cr1300 would be valid, as would 1900, as they're both 1600±(2*150). I need to correct the above; I added 300 twice, rather than 150.

Given a standard world of Cr10,000, using the nicely rounded Cr1600, gives 0.6%; the -1σ level would be divisor 1450 for 0.7%, -2σ about 0.8%, +1σ about 0.57%, +2σ about 0.5%

 

[BytePro]

...
(One person of every 300 owns a million dollars or more?!? That figure surprises me quite a lot.)

Sounds about right... private financial wealth typically includes not only cash on hand and savings, but retirement instruments - money market funds, listed securities, etc. Its around 5 million households in the U.S. (note, the U.S. also leads the pack in number of 'millionaires' - but note how this measure is tied to investments...)

It doesn't include residences, personal businesses, or luxury goods. Nor the debts associated with them. If those 5 million households had to come up with 1 million net cash most could not.

Keep in mind also, that GDP is an economic measure - not a direct 'wealth' figure.

GDP relates to purchasing power/trade - not individual salaries, savings, or assets. The world GDP (nominal U.S.) is ~ $70 trillion, while the private financial wealth is ~$122 trillion. And - that later doesn't include company wealth - ala Apple's > 60 billion war chest, etc - which is significant in GDP.

You are relating apples to oranges here (pun) - you asked a question about counts of 'millionaires' - it is incorrect to assume a direct correlation between accumulated personal financial wealth and GDP per capita. There are quite a few countries that exceed U.S.'s - but their count of millionaires is lower. This relates to factors like overall higher salaries/cost of living, top heavy wealth, and economy including exports and imports, health care - not to mention how much government plays a role in investments.

You could use GDP and the financial wealth information provided to come up with a model based on a snapshot of our world ... but its application to Traveller (even assuming one adjusted for its mixed use of 1960-mid 1970 nominal earth related to 2d6 ) would be quite, uhm, challenging across TLs and within the limits of UWP stats.

Traveller doesn't have stats (to my knowledge) related to actual overall 'wealth' of a planetary population. Consider, an individual low pop world is probably more likely to have a higher percentage of super wealthy individuals whose monies do not move in the local economy - as their GDP based on pop and the x0.512 - x1.92 multipliers of Striker are not going to support them doing so...

I can see coming up with a random stat that took into account trade codes, law level, government type, TL and pop to come up with some type of wealth distribution model. But it would be tricky and of questionable value.

 

[DangerousThing]

(One person of every 300 owns a million dollars or more?!? That figure surprises me quite a lot.)

Having a million dollars isn't that difficult if you include retirement savings and insurance. For example, had my wife died before the US economy tanked, I would have been a millionaire. Most of that was our retirement savings.

As it is, we're eating into principle now. She has an odd illness that requires me to be her caregiver, causes her a lot of pain, and may be randomly terminal.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

(One person of every 300 owns a million dollars or more?!? That figure surprises me quite a lot.)

Yeah. But a million dollars doesn't mean as much as it used to. It just happens to be the first number that occurs outside most people's (in a lot of the western world) acquaintance. Being a billionaire in Mexico before they revalued the peso wasn't exactly a grand achievement, iirc.

She has an odd illness that requires me to be her caregiver, causes her a lot of pain, and may be randomly terminal.

Prayers for you and yours, DT.

 

[aramis]

Sounds about right... private financial wealth typically includes not only cash on hand and savings, but retirement instruments - money market funds, listed securities, etc. Its around 5 million households in the U.S. (note, the U.S. also leads the pack in number of 'millionaires' - but note how this measure is tied to investments...)

Actually, the US isn't even the top 20... Singapore is the #1.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I got to thinking about spending and savings philosophy and accumulating inherited wealth.

Take for example a culture that believes in saving and accumulating wealth, via financial investments and real property and things that retain and possibly increase in value like art. And if families typically have only 1-2 children the inherited wealth from generation to generation could grow considerably.

On the opposite side
If people are living longer and are retired longer it would eat into what would have been an inheritance.
If families are large any inheritance would be divided and smaller.
In some other culture, debt might be passed on to the next generation.

Basically, I'm just wondering how inherited wealth or even inherited debt might play into this count of millionaires or should it just be ignored?