The problem with this analysis is that at the lower levels the relationship breaks down completely. There is a large cohort with a zero or negative net worth that also has plenty of income, and therefore credit access. e.g. I have a family member who is ↑-5 Wealth by your scale who just bought a $700K house earlier this year.
At the very beginning of the article, the author immediately states that they're not using raw net worth (and explains why they chose to do so). The actual metric is
> the amount of money someone could bring to bear on a problem if they had to. If someone they loved fell deathly ill, but the treatment would cost some large amount of money, how much could they pull together in a month or two?
