How many millionaires on a world?
- Thread starter rancke
- Start date
There are lots of different figures floating about - but despite recent declines, the ones I've checked all still have U.S. at the top of the pack in terms of number of millionaires...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire#Number_of_millionaires_in_the_world
I know, it's wikipedia, but too busy to gather good links at the moment.
Its not an insignificant portion in the RW - and in a setting like the OTU, with nobility, it would seem even more pertinent...
What I would like is a formula that I can plug population and per capita income into and come up with an average number of millionaires for worlds of that population and pci. I would then use a die roll (perhaps 2D-7*5% for +/- 25%) to establish the number of millionaires on the specific world.
After that, I'd calculate that 2/3rds of those had 1-9 millions, 2/3rds of the remainder had 10-99 millions, 2/3rds of the remainder had 100-999 millions, etc., etc.. (It would be nice if there was a simple way to account for the steepening of the pyramid at the top that Wil talks about, but if not, I'd just fiddle with the results by hand).
Hans
After that, I'd calculate that 2/3rds of those had 1-9 millions, 2/3rds of the remainder had 10-99 millions, 2/3rds of the remainder had 100-999 millions, etc., etc.. (It would be nice if there was a simple way to account for the steepening of the pyramid at the top that Wil talks about, but if not, I'd just fiddle with the results by hand).
Hans
I have given you one based upon the US states... expressed as a percentage. turning it into a direct usable formula...
Nm = P * Ipc /(R * 100000)
Given ...
P = Population in persons
Ipc = income per capita
R = ratio value, which based upon US data should be aboout 13-19, with an average of 16.
R table: 2d6
2 = 6 + 1d6
3 = 13
4 = 14
5 = 15
6 = 15.5
7 = 16
8 = 16.5
9 = 17
10 = 18
11 = 19
12 = 19+1d6
To make the system savings-heavy, decrease R. To make it spending-heavy, increase R.
In connection with another thread I tried out Wil's formula on a generic TL15 world with a population of 90 billion and an 'Industrial' trade classification. The result makes me hope that I've made a mistake somewhere.
Population 90,000,000,000
Per capita income: Cr22,000*1.4 = Cr30,800
Ratio value: 16 (the average)
90,000,000,000 * 30,800/1,600,000 =
2,722,000,000,000,000/1,600,000 =
1,732,500 millionaires and up.
Assuming one in three is one step up, I get:
1,732,500 millionaires* (106+)
577,500 10-millionaires* (107+)
192,500 100-millionaires* (108+)
64,167 billionaires* (109+)
21,389 10-billionaires* (1010+)
7,130 100-billionaires* (1011+)
2,377 trillionaires* (1012+)
792 10-trillionaires* (1013+)
264 100-trillionaires* (1014+)
88 quadrillionaires* (1015+)
29 10-quadrillionaires* (1016+)
10 100-quadrillionaires* (1017+)
3 quintillionaires* (1018+)
1 10-quintillionaire (1019)
And that's for a single world. Granted, it's a very populous world with a very high per capita income, but there are a considerable number of other worlds in the same league and that doesn't even begin to look at interstellar -illionaires.
Perhaps one could assume that Earth is an outlier instead of average in terms of number of -illionaires and steepness of the wealth pyramid? Perhaps the average ratio is 20 (though that won't actually help much) and one fourth or one fifth are a step up from the next lower level?
Hans
Population 90,000,000,000
Per capita income: Cr22,000*1.4 = Cr30,800
Ratio value: 16 (the average)
90,000,000,000 * 30,800/1,600,000 =
2,722,000,000,000,000/1,600,000 =
1,732,500 millionaires and up.
Assuming one in three is one step up, I get:
1,732,500 millionaires* (106+)
577,500 10-millionaires* (107+)
192,500 100-millionaires* (108+)
64,167 billionaires* (109+)
21,389 10-billionaires* (1010+)
7,130 100-billionaires* (1011+)
2,377 trillionaires* (1012+)
792 10-trillionaires* (1013+)
264 100-trillionaires* (1014+)
88 quadrillionaires* (1015+)
29 10-quadrillionaires* (1016+)
10 100-quadrillionaires* (1017+)
3 quintillionaires* (1018+)
1 10-quintillionaire (1019)
* And up.
And that's for a single world. Granted, it's a very populous world with a very high per capita income, but there are a considerable number of other worlds in the same league and that doesn't even begin to look at interstellar -illionaires.
Perhaps one could assume that Earth is an outlier instead of average in terms of number of -illionaires and steepness of the wealth pyramid? Perhaps the average ratio is 20 (though that won't actually help much) and one fourth or one fifth are a step up from the next lower level?
Hans
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
If I was living on a world with a population of 90 billion
and had the resources to live aboard a mega yacht, I'm going for it.Hey, that's only 13 times as crowded as Earth today.If I was living on a world with a population of 90 billion
Hans
Carlos Slim, the richest man on Earth according to Forbes, has a net worth of 71 billion dollars, which is fairly close to 0.1% of the Earth's gross annual product. Going by that yardstick, the richest man on our sample world should have a net worth of about 2.7 trillion credits. That's seven step down from the 10-quintillionaire I came up with from the 'one-in-three' rule of thumb.
If I use 'one in ten is a step up', I get two trillionaires. But that's a very gentle wealth pyramid. Unbelievably gentle? It definitely has the advantage of being very easy to use.
Hans
If I use 'one in ten is a step up', I get two trillionaires. But that's a very gentle wealth pyramid. Unbelievably gentle? It definitely has the advantage of being very easy to use.
Hans
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
It is impossible to lay down any sort of formula for determining this, because it depends upon a large number of variables.
The question of the distribution of wealth that one should "expect" in a "fair" system is addressed at some length in a book called Equality by Jonathan Sumption and Keith Joseph.
Jonathan Sumption is now a Justice of the Supreme Court, and Keith Joseph was Margaret Thatcher's Education Minister.
When reading the book, you will probably wish to adjust for their staunchly right-wing starting point; but their mathematics are difficult to argue with.
The question of the distribution of wealth that one should "expect" in a "fair" system is addressed at some length in a book called Equality by Jonathan Sumption and Keith Joseph.
Jonathan Sumption is now a Justice of the Supreme Court, and Keith Joseph was Margaret Thatcher's Education Minister.
When reading the book, you will probably wish to adjust for their staunchly right-wing starting point; but their mathematics are difficult to argue with.
The flipside of this discussion is how poor are most of the population. It's got to be way below average.
If most of the population earns Cr X, and 1/3 of them earns Cr 10X, then the average income is Cr 4X. The average Joe only makes 1/4 of the planetary mean income.
Once you add that actually 1/9 earns Cr 100X, then the average is Cr 14X, and Joe Nobody makes only 1/14th of the world average.
This progression keeps getting worse, until you reach a super-rich category with only 1 guy in it (Carlos Slim), and that's the place to stop calculating. With steps of 1/3 of the population, that's near enough 2 steps per Traveller pop code. This feels like it should be spreadsheet-able. Given pop-code and average income, you could calculate how many earn a given figure.
If most of the population earns Cr X, and 1/3 of them earns Cr 10X, then the average income is Cr 4X. The average Joe only makes 1/4 of the planetary mean income.
Once you add that actually 1/9 earns Cr 100X, then the average is Cr 14X, and Joe Nobody makes only 1/14th of the world average.
This progression keeps getting worse, until you reach a super-rich category with only 1 guy in it (Carlos Slim), and that's the place to stop calculating. With steps of 1/3 of the population, that's near enough 2 steps per Traveller pop code. This feels like it should be spreadsheet-able. Given pop-code and average income, you could calculate how many earn a given figure.
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
Not without data on standard deviation (which will differ from world to world), and knowing the social (and therefore legal) attitude to inherited wealth (is it taxed heavily? Or not at all), general taxation levels and so forth, and just how long it is since the last revolution / general leveling event, and thus how many years and generations of re-accumulation have occurred in the mean time.
Inherited wealth is a bit of a non-issue in western societies. The studies show that it seldom lasts even the lifetime of the children, unless it's been set up as a family trust. Given that all of the truly exhorbitantly wealthy on record have been western or north african... and have been TL 5+ (Well, JP Morgan may qualify at TL 4)... the data is a pretty short set.
And thats before accounting for the typically progressive and heavy inheritance taxes.
So, the real question is how does the world limit financial mobility, which is an economics model issue.
It's perfectly possible. You just ignore the variables and assume that they cancel out. You just have to be careful not to read more into the results than they can bear.
Hans
I've done a spreadsheet based on income. There are just 5 factors to be entered:
Population
Average income
Population step for high earners : 1 in x people are higher earners
Income step for high earners : high earners make x times as much as the lower band
Net worth = x years' income
I got surprising results from a population of only 10 million (a major city on Earth) with an average income of Cr 60,000. Pop Step is 3 and Income step 10 (in line with the real-world data early in this thread). On that basis, Richie Rich makes 466 Billion a year, while 9,822,853 of the population live on less than a credit a year !
I don't find those steps very plausible, but it's easy enough to play around with them to get a different model of society
Population
Average income
Population step for high earners : 1 in x people are higher earners
Income step for high earners : high earners make x times as much as the lower band
Net worth = x years' income
I got surprising results from a population of only 10 million (a major city on Earth) with an average income of Cr 60,000. Pop Step is 3 and Income step 10 (in line with the real-world data early in this thread). On that basis, Richie Rich makes 466 Billion a year, while 9,822,853 of the population live on less than a credit a year !
I don't find those steps very plausible, but it's easy enough to play around with them to get a different model of society
Cr60,000 is a very high average income. The highest you can get with the Striker rules is Cr36,960 on a rich, agricultural TL15 world.
Hans
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The average income here in the UK is £26,500, in the US it is around $50,000.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Inherited wealth is a major issue here in the UK. If your parents own their own home you have just become a homeowner, if you parents own land you have just become a landowner, if your parents own their own factory you have just become a factory owner, if your parents are part of the nobility and own land/property you have just become immensely wealthy.
That's as of 2012. Striker came out in 1981. As of 1981, U.S. per capita was in the $18K range. Adjusted for inflation, that's $46k in today-dollars. Multiply Striker up by about 2 1/2 times if you want it in 2012 dollars.
and that's pretty much the point I was trying to make. The whole model is so sensitive to the parameters for what percentage of the population earn how much more than the rest. In this case, a high figure for average income still puts most of the population into such poverty that they never even see money.
Earth GDP per capita was only $12,700 (ppp) in 2012
Earth median income per capita was just under $3000 in 2013.
how many millionaires will depend a great deal on the world's Gini value.
Consider some of the numbers used in this article ( there are many such articles on the 'net )
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-income-inequality-20140121,0,3481555.story#axzz2yrRJ8fVm
Earth median income per capita was just under $3000 in 2013.
how many millionaires will depend a great deal on the world's Gini value.
Consider some of the numbers used in this article ( there are many such articles on the 'net )
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-income-inequality-20140121,0,3481555.story#axzz2yrRJ8fVm
