The really wealthy people are just really wealthy, beyond what most of us here can probably conceive of. Even if you strike it big in Silicon Valley and make $10M-$50M from your startup, you're still nowhere near all the Chinese real estate magnates, Saudi oil magnates, the people whose family fortune has been accumulating for the past hundred years or so, etc.

I was actually surprised to find that the net worth of many celebrities that most of us imagine as really wealthy is not all that much compared to the aforementioned. For instance, let's pick Benedict Cumberbatch, an actor who just had the lead role in a Marvel movie being shown around the world that a lot of people would immediately recognize on the street - a cursory internet search indicates his net worth is about $20M. Not a crazy amount by any means.

Well what you mention about ultrawealthy individuals doesn't really matter since one billionaire is still only one person. In terms of setting the bar for where the 1% threshold is, it wouldn't make a difference if someone has $1B or $10M. So what matters in the quantity of people who own more than $750K in assets, rather than exactly how much each of those people own.

>Cumberbatch

It says he made $2.6M from Dr. Strange. His paydays from movies are on an upward trajectory, so he may crack the $5m/film mark in a few years. Also, I assume this is ordinary income, which is really tax disadvantaged, especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance), which probably means that they pay both sides of the payroll tax.

http://networthtomb.com/benedict-cumberbatch-net-worth-endor...

But these very visible people can wield tremendous influence. The three pillars are power, money, and influence, and you can trade one for the others. Celebrities may not be as powerful as governors or as wealthy as tech billionaires, but their voice often travels much farther than their counterparts.

> especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance)

At least actors don't have to pay state taxes in each state where they "play" like athletes do. Athletes, while often highly paid, really get screwed in just about every way come tax time.

The real question is: does it really matter? I'd guess that around 5-10 million is when you can afford a nice house anywhere you want (I'm not talking about palaces with servants). You can have several holidays per year doing what you want, where you want it. Etc.

Oh I wasn't trying to answer the "does it really matter" question, just attempting to offer perspective on the OP's surprise.

I guess anonymity is also a luxury that the super wealthy can easily afford.

It's surprising not because of how rich it makes the richest, but because of how many rich people it implies. In order for that to be true, 75 million people out there make $750k or more.

It's not revenue, it's wealth.

s/make/have

Just having bought a house in a few US states 25 years ago, and having serviced the mortgage on it since then, puts you in that bracket. There many, many electricians and plumbers (just to name some not particularly high paying jobs) out there who have a net worth of 750k+ around retirement age.

I'm a bit confused after reading your post, especially your first paragraph. So no sarcasm intended here, just curiosity.

> you're still nowhere near all the Chinese real estate magnates, Saudi oil magnates, the people whose family fortune has been accumulating for the past hundred years or so, etc.

Are you implying those people would be richer than the publicly wealthy we know of (the Walton family, Gates, Buffet etc.)? If that is not the case, I don't think "inconceivable" is the word I would use in this case..

>$20M. Not a crazy amount by any means.

It would take a little over 300 years to earn that much at my current annual income.

Globally. That mostly illustrate that the size of the population in developing countries is an order of magnitude larger than in developed countries. The number is kind of meaningless.

Percentiles makes more sense within a country. The only thing I found for the us is the article bellow which puts the threshold at $8.4 millions...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-t...

Well parent is surprised that $750k only gets you 1%, despite the large population of developing nations -- the opposite of what you are supporting.

It's kinda ambiguous: it could mean either "a meager 750k" or "a meager top 1%".

Yeah, you could read it as:

[750K only] gets you to top 1%?

or

750K [only gets you to top 1%]?

I read it the former

Think of all the people who have that much money simply tied up in their house, because they happened to live in an area that experienced a housing boom after they bought.

> In a tangent, Grübel [former CEO of US and Credit Suisse] gave his thoughts on what makes a man rich: "rich is a man when he goes to bed in a carefree manner and wakes up without care." He is then asked if, by that definition, a billionaire is rich to which he replied: "No. Money has little to do with wealth. The real rich are carefree. Those who are healthy, are not dependent. The greatest wealth is independence."

Money has little to do with wealth once you have enough. I doubt that there are many wage slaves that are rich according to that definition.

I can attest to this. I made a small fortune in Silicon Valley and retired at age 40. Every day, I'm thankful that I have my health and a full day to do whatever I want.

I don't know what I'd do with the investment income from the next level of wealth. The conspicuous consumption (for instance) of flying by timeshare on a private jet instead of on a regular scheduled flight would just attract problems in my life. People can smell money from a mile away if you don't keep your head down.

I am at Grübel's level of rich. I am healthy, have no dependents and own my own time. I enjoy taking a walk in the park on a Tuesday afternoon because I want to. The afternoon meetings I had to attend in Silicon Valley were the worst.

I saw a sign once that said, "My hope is to die in a staff meeting: that way, the transition from life to death will be subtle." I understood the sentiment 100%.

Even by Silicon Valley terms, I had a great income and a good career. But I will never return to it.

If I didn't have something to care for then my life would feel pretty pointless. But yes money to a certain level allows you to chose what you care for. That is worth a lot.