On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), ta <padlrnc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Mar 11, 1:41 pm, ro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:31:19 +0100, a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(PeterBP) wrote:
>> >ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> What is the most objective measure of an individual's wealth?
>>
>> >Assets.
>>
>> True, but I assumed he meant relative ("an individual's") wealth, not
>> absolute wealth. I see now that he might also have meant absolute
>> wealth.
>
>What I really meant was:
>
>If someone asks you if you are better off financially today than 10
>years ago, what is the most objective way to measure that?
Net worth divided by local median wages.
>"Real wages" is the usual term that I have seen most, but I'm just
>wondering if that is universally accepted, or is there a different/
>better measure. "Real wages" make good sense to me, but not being an
>expert in economics, I'm just trying to learn if that is the best way.
Real wages is a decent measure of how much people earn, but doesn't
say much about their own financial condition. For example, a retiree
or idle millionaire is in better shape if wages are low.
-- Roy L
|
