![\"\"](\"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/Bloomberg-table.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAs with the seismic scale for earthquakes, this net worth scale squeezes an enormous amount of variation into a compact set of numbers.<\/p>\n
The poorest of the poor, at -2, are only 13 units away from the richest of the rich, the handful of 11s who have unimaginable wealth and power. (That could be a problem if it makes the gap between poor and rich appear easily bridgeable, which of course it isn\u2019t.)<\/p>\n
You can see this catching on, right? \u201cI was a -2 when I got out of school with a load of debt, but it didn\u2019t take me long to get to 5. I\u2019m pretty sure I\u2019ll be a 6 by the time I\u2019m 40. A friend of mine who started a company became a 7 when it went public.\u201d<\/p>\n
Or: \u201cShe can easily afford to buy that WNBA team. She\u2019s a billionaire. I mean, a 10, not just a 9.\u201d<\/p>\n
Take a minute and figure out where you stand on the scale. We estimated the number of people in each group, using data from the Bloomberg Billionaires Index for numbers 9 through 11 and the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report for all the rest.<\/p>\n
The numbers of people in each group are admittedly rough. For example, Bloomberg estimates that there are more than 2,800 adult billionaires (numbers 9 through 11, combined) in the world, while Credit Suisse estimates there are about 1,600.<\/p>\n
The estimates for the lower levels are squishier. Credit Suisse doesn\u2019t try to break things down for numbers below 3, simply estimating that about 1.5 billion adults worldwide have net worth under $1,000.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s best to view the numbers of people in the lower brackets as ballpark figures, subject to change as more data come in. The academics who put together the World Inequality Report 2018 edition write, \u201cWe want to be very clear about this: available data sources make it impossible at this stage to properly estimate the level and evolution of the global distribution of wealth.\u201d<\/p>\n
The purchasing power figures are likewise intended to be illustrative, not hard data. For example, we say a 4 can afford a new car. The point isn\u2019t that new cars cost $10,000 to $99,999 (although that\u2019s the right order of magnitude). It\u2019s that you probably need to be a 4 to afford a new car. Although, of course, there are 1s, 2s, and 3s who will stretch to buy one.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a bit appalling that disparities in wealth have gotten so big that we need logarithms to describe them. But that\u2019s the world we live in.<\/p>\n
\n