[mdorazio]

I don't like wealth comparisons because they do a poor job of accounting for usable vs. locked up wealth. What I mean is that you could easily live in California and have $200k in counted wealth, but virtually all of it is in your home's equity and more or less inaccessible to you while someone living in a cheaper country with $200k in wealth likely has a lot more of it in liquid form.

Disposable Income is a better indicator of "money you get and can actually use" than total median income or wealth. The US is easily #1 in this category by PPP mean [1], and only drops to #3 by median.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...

[nabla9]

What you mean locked up??

You can sell your house in France within a month, than land California with that wealth in your bank account.

Net wealth is good measure precisely because you can't transfer it into money and move around with it.

[mdorazio]

If you have a sudden $1000 expense, you can't magically sell your house to pay it off next week. Also if you sell your house, what are you going to do then? Live on the street with all your belongings in shopping carts? Magically find another job paying the same amount somewhere cheaper?

Home equity is not liquid. It's locked up. There's a reason finance distinguishes between liquid and fixed assets - they are different classes with different dynamics.

[nabla9]

So you want to compare incomes, fine.

If we want to compare wealth. As in being rich or poor, then net wealth is the proper way to compare stuff.