Where do you rank - wealth (million, income, California, Idaho)

[k374]

wealthometer.org

Interesting tool... my estimate was 40 and my actual was 88, I feel poor as hell but only because I live in an astronomically expensive locale (Southern California)

[rruff]

I guessed 80% and came out to 83%. Most of that was accumulated on an income that has averaged ~$15k/yr over the last 25 years.

A lot of people have no assets, but they live a lot fancier than I do.

[saibot]

We came out at 82%. It doesn't make sense to me that the calculator divides by the number of people in the household. That for us is 5 (me, my husband, three kids), but 3/5 of our wealth does not belong to our kids. It all belongs to me and my husband, at this point. If I run the same numbers with 2 family members, we go up to 91%.

I feel poor as hell but only because I live in an astronomically expensive locale (Southern California)

I hear you, k374. We live there too.

[kanhawk]

Mine turned out to be 87. For fun , I tried the German wealthometer as well and it came out to 92

[Hemlock140]

I said 60, and came out 83. Interesting that so far we have all been in the 80s, seems a little suspicious.

[Lacerta]

I guessed 65. I'm doing all right for my area, but I'm in one of the lowest wage/lowest COL area of the country, so I knew that compared to other areas, I'd be low. Was surprised I came in at 74.

I'm intending hubby and I will retire in our 50s, but for our area, with no kids, $600k will do that. I'd retire today at 37 if I had $800k. So my wealth is never going to compare to someone in NYC or LA.

So to be at 74 felt pretty good. If I lived in NYC and came in at 74, I'm sure I'd feel super poor.

[MLSFan]

mid 80s for me as well...
I dont think it is suspicious to have so many in 80s...

for as much time as people complain on CD, we have the luxury to actually complain. Have a home to come back to, have utilities, have computer, have food, etc...

I like how everyone "underestimates" themselves and then wonder why millionaires call themselves middle class and people that aren't think they are "richer" than they really are.

I'm more interested if it broke it down into age groups though.

I'm sure I do okay for my group, but compared to someone working/investing at is 60 while I'm only a few years out of college?

edit: what I thought was interesting is how much more money it takes to go from 98% to 99%

[Lacerta]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

I said 60, and came out 83. Interesting that so far we have all been in the 80s, seems a little suspicious.

I don't think it is all that odd. Few people would be in the 90%+ range. And people who come to the CityData econ forum are more likely to be more financially savvy in general. So I would expect most people HERE to be in the 70-90% range, even though obviously the vast majority are not.

[Lacerta]

Originally Posted by eyeb

I like how everyone "underestimates" themselves and then wonder why millionaires call themselves middle class and people that aren't think they are "richer" than they really are.

It's difficult to estimate where you will be nationwide. If there was a wealthometer for Boise, Idaho, I'm sure I'd come in over 90%. If there was one for the state of Idaho, I might come in over 95% (maybe not, I forgot about Sun Valley for a minute). But nationally, where to guess is difficult.

And I agree that age is a metric that would be an important influence on standing. When I was 22, I'm sure, my ranking would have been about that as well - 22%. When hubby and I are mid 50s and hoping to retire, we might approach the 90% marker, which looks like it is somewhere over $350k per person.

[earthlyfather]

I guessed 87 and came out 93. I have to pick up the effort, cut out the unforced errors and vote for right Presidential candidate. A little help in the form of turn out from tens of millions disaffected conservatives would help too.