In the human world, wealth inequality arguably has more of an impact on lives and relationships than physical differences like distance and energy. We need to have meaningful discussions about structural class differences, and segmenting the population based on wealth is an obvious starting point.
Like with other quantities, we don’t need precision beyond the exponent to see profound differences and similarities. It’s not useful to compare relative wealth within a wealth level, except perhaps to say “lower” (at risk of falling to a lower level) or “upper” (the next level higher is within reach). And for wealth specifically, using any further precision easily leads to direct wealth comparisons between members of the same level, which then leads to jealousy and discontent, rather than insight into the core issue.
For the quantitative treatment, we need to anchor the scale, but using exact values is not possible due to inflation. On a mag scale, inflation happens pretty slowly (↑1.5 from 1900-2025 in the US–about 30x), but this consistent drift can’t be ignored.
This scale is calibrated on US dollars in the early 1980s; this aligns with some basic cultural expectations around wealth. For instance, that a dollar can still buy something useful, and that a “millionaire” is considered wealthy. To translate 2024 US dollars into mag wealth, divide by 3 (or ↑0.5).
All dollar values are given in 2024 US dollars for convenience.
These wealth levels have existed throughout human history, even though the unit of currency changes.
At the bottom-most level, a person can’t even scrape together a few bucks for some food. Societal services aren’t accessible unless they are completely free. Finding a toilet and shower may be difficult. They have no possessions; their shoes and coat are probably decrepit and dirty.
At ↑0 wealth, a person can’t pull together $30.
Daily shelter and sustenance are at the mercy of other people. If they are not sleeping on the streets, then they are in public shelters, or squatting, or staying with relatives. (Few people will provide long-term housing for a friend with no money.) They need to hustle every single day for their needs, whether through mooching or begging or stealing.
Employment is not possible without support; even day-laborers need breakfast and transportation to the pickup site. Without a permanent address you can’t even donate blood plasma.
People at this level can’t borrow money, even from friends and relatives, because any lender would be foolish to expect repayment.
At ↑1 wealth, a person can reliably scrape together $10, maybe $50 or $100, but they might have to sell their body or blood to do it.
Housing at ↑1 is almost as tenuous as ↑0. If not living out of their car, they are couch-surfing; if they have a permanent address, they are living with someone else and paying a low or flexible amount of rent.
They may not have a bank account, or if they do, it is in danger of being overdrawn.
If they have a car, it’s a junker, and it has less than a quarter tank of gas.
They work odd jobs. They might get a windfall of $300 from a generous client or a lottery scratch-off ticket, but they would likely spend it immediately on essentials they have been putting off.
Hard drugs are plentiful at this level.
At ↑1, no institution will lend them any amount of money, though friends or relatives might. Church and religious community can be very helpful with food banks and meal services, even if the recipient isn’t religious.
At ↑2 wealth, a person can pull together $300, but it might involve hustle, or a pawnshop, or collecting on some debt.
They have some kind of steady employment, maybe minimum wage, and make enough money to have a permanent address. They get benefits at their employer’s discretion–so probably not.
At ↑2 a bank account becomes necessary, to deposit paychecks and pay bills. It can be a challenge to avoid bank overdrafts. They are likely to have bad credit or no credit, and use a debit card. If they need money and are upper ↑2, they may have a credit card with a small limit. At lower ↑2 they might get a payday loan. They probably can’t or shouldn’t pay it off straight from their bank account, because they need to make sure rent and groceries are paid first. Basic money management skills like budgeting and cashflow are required to move from lower ↑2 to upper ↑2.
A hallmark of ↑2 is unstable housing and/or rotating roommates. Good and cheap situations are hard to come by, and when they do, they don’t generally last. So people at ↑2 wealth are either moving in constant search of a good one, but move after a month or two because there was something wrong with it. Or they have found a stable situation that’s cheap enough, but it’s sketchy or unpleasant or both, but they put up with it because it’s the best of bad options. Often the latter involves a roommate; more than 2 (non-family) roommates is almost inherently an unstable configuration.
Living with immediate family is common. If they live alone, it is in subsidized housing, or a very small studio.
At ↑2, they can’t maintain their life for more than a month without working or outside support (possibly unemployment). Vacations are exclusively long weekends or during holidays. A week off work is a luxury and 2 weeks off would have to involve a once-in-a-lifetime event.
They can buy a nice little thing for themselves here and there. They probably feel guilty about it. They appreciate gifts of nice things they can technically afford but wouldn’t buy themselves. But not expensive things. It’s hard enough to get money to repair or replace items that break down, so durable goods are often in a state of disrepair. They can’t reasonably sell an expensive item to replace things they might need more; and if the expensive item itself breaks, repairs will be more expensive. So a ↑3 gift (some thousands of dollars) would be kind of overwhelming to someone at ↑2, unless it’s a car. A gift that cost more than ↑3 would be weird or confusing.
In the US, people at ↑2 are generally eligible for some kind of government assistance, and have more ability to collect it reliably: food stamps, Section 8 housing. But many programs restrict assets to ↑2 (Medicaid is restricted to having less than $2000 in the bank).
↑3 wealth is lower-middle class. They can pull together a few thousand bucks if their car breaks down, but it hurts. They can buy a used car if they have to replace it, or a new car on a payment plan.
Credit cards and car loans are the hallmarks of this level: people are likely to have more creditors than bank accounts. If they are lower ↑3 they carry credit card debt and may have to juggle some things around to fund an emergency expense. If they are upper ↑3 they can manage to carry an extra balance for a few months.
One big unexpected expense could put them deep into debt, which is one way they could become stuck here.
They rent and their housing situation has been stable for years. They can make a deliberate choice about where to live and could even move cities, but that’s uncommon at this level.
If they lose their job, it’s financially stressful, but they can make it a few months without income. Upper ↑3 could even make it a year if they maxed out their credit cards. They generally can choose where to work, and to leave terrible work environments. Their hours are dictated.
↑4 wealth is middle class. This includes young professionals, middle-aged small business owners, and older tradesmen.
At ↑4, they have a foothold in society; shrewd operators can climb from here.
Unburdened by debt (or only having “smart” debt, like low-interest fixed-rate loans), they have probably 6 months savings, the start of a retirement account, they’re doing the financial things you’re supposed to do. They probably dabble in investing, if only with that retirement account.
They are a relatively recent (under 10 years) home-owner, or they rent a decent place. They have an extra bedroom as an office or for guests.
They have the first taste of relative freedoms. They can take longer and/or more frequent vacations; a month for a significant overseas trip is not out of the question.
They may have bought a new car, but it’s probably not fancy unless they’re showing off. They either own property or are looking for property or saving up to buy property.
If they lose their job or their business is not doing well, they can last a year, maybe a few more if they are at upper ↑4 or can reduce their expenses to ↑3 levels.
At ↑5 wealth, a person is upper-middle class; they can pull together hundreds of thousands of dollars. Enough to buy a house and live comfortably. Money is no longer the primary obstacle in their life.
They’ve figured out the things they want, and they can have them. Not the best of everything, but the best of some things, the things that matter to them.
They have a money market account and know how to trade equities.
If they need a substantial amount of money, they can borrow from their retirement accounts, mortgage their house, or sell some investments.
If they are older, they are retired, and they may be able to leave some ↑4 or even ↑5 wealth to their children. If younger, they may not be able to retire, but they also don’t have to work this year, or the next, or the next.
A person with lower ↑6 wealth is a “high-net-worth individual” (HNWI, $1m), and a person with upper ↑6 wealth is a “very-high-net-worth individual” (VHNWI, $5m).
Colloquially, they’re “rich”. Employment is optional.
How do they bank? Where do they live? What kind of debt and other monetary instruments do they use?
There are 16 million HNWIs (↑7 people) in the world.
A person with upper ↑7 wealth is an “ultra-high-net-worth individual” (UHNWI, $30m+).
This is a huge amount of money.
already a stupid amount of money: 10x more wealth than merely “rich”. This is absolutely generational wealth–buying normal things doesn’t make a dent, and things that cost a lot of money often retain their value over time (like real estate or fine art).
UHNW individuals “have, on average, eight cars and three or four homes. Three-quarters own a jet aircraft and most have a yacht.” (2006)
They have staff, to manage their money and their properties (multiple). If they have children, they have a full-time nanny or au pair.
Tax management is key at this level. They use offshore tax havens.
If they need money, they go to their investment bank and borrow against their investments, which might be illiquid, or they don’t want to sell for tax purposes.
Proposed “wealth taxes” would only apply to people with at least ↑7 wealth.
At ↑8 wealth, a person has hundreds of millions of dollars. At ↑8.5 wealth they become a “billionaire”.
Buy, Borrow, Die is a tax minimization strategy that only works at ↑8 and above.
In 2024, ↑4.5 people (about 50,000) have ↑8 wealth.
The world has always been fascinated by people with ludicrous amounts of wealth and power. Usually there are just a few sovereigns and family dynasties in this category. In In 1990, about 250 people (↑2.5) had ↑9 wealth. In 2024, about 2500 people (↑3.5) have ↑9 wealth.
In 1990, the richest people were the Sultan of Brunei (2024US$60b), King Fahd of Saudi Arabia (2024US$43b), and Queen Elizabeth II of England (2024US$28b). Also the Mars family, the Newhouse family, and the Reichmann family with about $30b each. This is ↑10 wealth.
In 2024, there are over 200 people with ↑10 wealth. 15 of those people have ↑10.5 wealth (over $100b).
The ultra rich as a class have gotten 10x wealthier in the last 30 years, and that’s after adjusting for inflation.
Note that Forbes only started publishing a list of billionaires in 1987. Prior to that, they just did an article on the “worlds richest people” (1983) separated into three strata (lower ↑8, upper ↑8, ↑9) without maintaining a complete and ordered list.
Some lists of the wealthiest people in history speculate that Ford, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Rockefeller had the equivalent of ↑11 wealth, but that’s when calculated as a percentage of GDP and scaled up. Adjusting for literal inflation, none of them even come close.
A handful of corporations in history, including Dutch East India Company and Standard Oil, had valuations of ↑11. In modern times, it’s Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla at upper ↑11, and another 20 or so companies at lower ↑11 valuations.
A country’s “national wealth” is the total value of net wealth owned by its residents. For context, the entire world has ↑14.7 wealth (about $500 trillion).
Some facts:
For instance, the US budget was:
At the end of World War I, the US budget grew 10x in one year (actually it was almost 20x from 1916-1919)! (If you look at the linked spreadsheet, it recedes to ↑9.5 during the Great Depression, before climbing again to ↑10 in 1940.)
So you can see that from 1910 to 2020, the US budget grew ↑4 (10,000x). This seems like a lot!
But GDP growth was ↑3.5 (from $↑11 in 1930 to $↑14.5 in 2025) over roughly the same time period, and US population growth was ↑0.5 (from ↑8 to ↑8.5 people). This makes sense, that the cost of government scales with its nation’s economy and population.
Factoring in inflation of ↑1.5, we might hypothesize that the US federal budget increased in the past 100 years due to population growth (3x), inflation (30x), and GDP growth (100x). A lot more would have to be one to support this theory, but it’s a very reasonable starting place.