[dgdas9]

We've been over this several times now. Oxfam uses very disingenuous criteria, and their numbers are not to be trusted. They consider debt to be negative wealth, which means that a middle class family with no net savings and a mortgage on their house is "poorer" than a starving child with 2 cents on their pocket.

[RHSeeger]

How does that work? Wouldn't the house be considered an asset then and, assuming it's not underwater, put the family back in the black?

[Erikun]

That specific example is a bad one as you say. A better is perhaps student loans. I recommend checking out BBCs More or less, they has covered the issues with Oxfams claims several times.

[TheCoelacanth]

Even in the case of student loans, that's still not an incorrect way to count net worth. The only problem with it is that we don't have a good way to measure the value of human capital.

[pnutjam]

Shh... Your ruining his narrative.

[metiscus]

I believe the point stands. If a penniless, homeless child has a worth of 0, and I have a house valued at 80,000 with a 90,000 mortgage, am I really worse off than the child without a home? Assuming I have a job and can make payments.

[pishpash]

If you assume you can make payments, then you are equivalently assuming your job has present asset value (or that you have human capital). So yes, a full accounting will show you are not actually underwater.

If you are delusional and have no job security, then yes, you're worse off than the child.