Just a few quick thoughts and then I will return to edit later.
Housing - might be fairly accurate if utilities are included.
Transportation - a quick and dirty calculation at $2.50/gallon of regular buys one about 2700 gallons. In seven years of commuting to work with a Silverado pickup I've used 5100 gallons. The articles estimate seems high but may include airfare etc. that I am not accounting for.
Food - $102/week for groceries is more than twice what I spend on average. I'm not sure if dining out is included here or in the Entertainment category.
Apparel - I don't spend that much in 10 years. Sandals and shorts aren't that expensive.

Just getting ready to walk out the door and go hiking and you start another one. I've always thought you need to be debt free (no mortgage, no rent, etc.) For a single retiree over age 65, $2,000,000 should do the trick and $3,000,000 for a couple. That's assuming your only income is Social Security and you don't live in some ultra expensive region of the country. It's also based on never making another penny in the market and conversely never losing another penny. Albeit I would hope your account can still compound, even if ever so slightly over those retirement years. Not a popular concept here, but you can control your losses in the market. On the other hand, I know many retirees who don't have even $100,000 but because of generous pensions and SS are living the good life. Dex, you are the master of interesting threads where there is never a right or wrong answer. Check in later this evening.

That other post about median net worth went off the rails - so ...
More info that just says to me the net worth numbers don't work.
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/05/18/is-1-million-enough-retirement-average-american.aspx

FYI: U.S. bond fund managers who have a large chunk of their portfolios invested in stocks say those holdings could give them an extra edge in a debt market selloff.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/18/funds-bonds-stocks-idUSL1N0Y61NI20150518

"“the odds that merely having more money will make you happier are pretty close to zero”."
Can I have his, then?
Over the past few years, I've increasingly focused on having a long-term view and preparing for that and being satisfied with that and then going with the flow to some degree. I just find it ultimately healthy. Hobbies, learning, reading. Ultimately, I've found that I've learned a great degree via investing because it has lead me in unexpected directions as I try to research companies, countries, industries, etc. I'd always found healthcare to be something that I "didn't understand, so let a fund manager do it." One day, I went, why couldn't I try to understand a lot of these concepts? It's ultimately been rewarding on a number of levels.
That said, in terms of people going, "Money doesn't make you happier" often leads me to saying some variation on what I do above.
As for occasional humor, I just find it better than being so serious about certain subjects I ultimately don't think I will change nor will I change someone's opinion on. Perhaps a little humor will lead someone to maybe be a little more open than arguing with them would or maybe have a second thought about something they'd stood firm on. Maybe not.
Perhaps there's a part of me that feels monetary policy has been distorted over the last several years to the point where perhaps it is a little ridiculous the kind of "Twilight Zone" we find ourselves in, where the focus is not really on anything but what Yellen might say (this Friday btw) and good news is regarded as bad because the market is so addicted to easy money.
As for the graph in the original post, perhaps it really does show that those who are doing well are doing well and much of the rest of the economy is not, or muddling along. Perhaps it further illustrates the lack of financial education (was told by a relative the other day when mentioning financial education that their 25-year-old had no idea how to write a check.) We are all on an investing board. What % of the population hasn't been taught or taught themselves basic investing concepts? I'd be willing to guess a larger % than most would think and that's unfortunate.
Additionally, in terms of wealth distribution I'd be curious to know what the population of the "1%" looks like over the years and whether or not that uppermost level of wealth is held by more or fewer hands.

Hi Guys,
Somehow, our thoughts have drifted away from a pure wealth distribution chat and into a discussion of a happiness/wealth correlation. Actually, this topic has a rich philosophical, academic research, and popular written history.
One invented word that continually surfaces in such a discussion is “satisficing”. What is satisficing? An on-line dictionary definition is: “A decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory or adequate result, rather than the optimal solution.”
Investopedia offers that “The theory of satisficing finds application in a number of fields including economics, artificial intelligence and sociology. Satisficing implies that a consumer, when confronted with a plethora of choices for a specific need, will select a product or service that is "good enough", rather than expending effort and resources on finding the best possible or optimal choice.” We often satisfice when making investment choices.
Tradeoffs always exist. As Lao Tsu recognized: “He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough”. I suspect Tsu’s quote holds much water once a minimum income/wealth floor threshold is satisfied. That floor level varies for each person, and is dependent on factors like age and location.
Countless books have been written on this subject over the ages. Jason Zweig devotes the final chapter in his “Your Money and Your Brain” book to coupling happiness to an investment program. He states that “The most powerful and reassuring lesson from the new research into happiness is that you don’t have to be rich to be happy”. Happily, I learned that significant lesson a long time ago.
Zweig lists many happiness tips including suggestions like: Turn off the tube, Go with the flow, Don’t let the old become bold, Get time on your side, and a host of other ideas. Zweig remarks that “the odds that merely having more money will make you happier are pretty close to zero”.
This broad assertion can be tied to Kahneman and Tversky’s 1979 Prospect Theory discovery. From experimental data with folks making decisions and their performance under uncertain conditions, they deduced a risk/reward tradeoff curve that is highly asymmetric and nonlinear. Negative payoffs hurt twice as much as positive outcomes enhance wellbeing, and the incremental benefits from positive outcomes approached nearly a zero slope level when enough is enough.
A very formal literature has evolved based on serious academic research. One finding from a highly mathematical research paper by Stuttgen, Boatwright, and Monroeis is that “Given this heterogeneity in potential choice rules, we agree that a satisficing choice model may not always be the appropriate model when analyzing consumer choices.” Basically, we all make choices differently with a mix of facts, logic, and emotional factors guiding our decisions.
Denials aside, the research suggests that we are mostly happy and independent warriors. We satisfice within the constraints of our own world views, resources, and needs. And we’re reasonable pleased (happy?) with our compromises.
Edit: Well the discussion has taken yet another turn. The economic policy battle is now joined. Great exchange guys over a complex subject. Based on my postings, MFOers likely can guess my position with considerable accuracy. But I choose not to further muddy waters that will not be cleared here and now. I choose to be silent. Good luck guys.
Best Wishes.

"Jeez, nothing like sarcastic preemption to cloud the facts. "
How about the religious zealot-level of devotion to theory, to the point where anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulted and given a reading list so you can make sure they are properly indoctrinated? I would be fascinated the response on this board if Krugman came out tomorrow and said he was becoming a Republican. It would be like telling kids there is no Santa.
And at least perhaps my light post gave a couple of people a chuckle. Ultimately, the decision that I have made is to do the only thing I can do: figure where I believe things are going and invest in a manner that expresses those beliefs. I will be light, I will occasionally be sarcastic, because honestly, we can sit here and argue about economic theory, but ultimately I don't believe that I have one iota of say (or do the people on this board, unless one of you is an FOMC member that the rest of us are unaware of) as to the ultimate direction this economy is being taken in. Beyond that, we live in an economy where there have been more than a few examples of "if the numbers don't confirm the narrative, change the numbers." We don't like GDP? Lets change how it's calculated. Ah, all better. Or, the goalposts are endlessly moved.
Given my lack of control, all I can do is attempt to try and think ahead and play futurist and invest accordingly. That's all I can do and coming to terms with that fact is ultimately freeing from the standpoint of, I don't care what one FOMC member does today and that another will ultimately probably contradict them a day or two later. I may not agree with monetary policy, but you know what, I really just don't care as much. I know that this period will end badly -and I say that with the utmost certainty - but I've invested in the manner that I think is appropriate. And that's all I can do. Maybe I'll crack jokes on here on occasion, I just think it's a better use of time than becoming stressed when someone says something I don't agree with.
All of this arguing on the internet does nothing, it fixes nothing and it's ultimately a waste of time. I love productive conversation - any sort of discussion of monetary policy or politics is ultimately futile because people have grown so deeply fixated on their beliefs that anyone else is often largely either shouted down or ignored. So, why do it? Or why not crack a few jokes. If I get someone to smile when I post a joke post with a "The More You Know" PSA at the end, that's worthwhile to me. I'm happy to talk about investments for hours on end, but the divisiveness of people in regards to certain topics does often lead to a joke because ultimately, I'd rather laugh than be upset over the internet about views of someone else's that I know with great certainty they have no interest whatsoever in changing. When I do crack a joke or make light, it's the almost religious devotion to political parties that shows itself. As I've said before on this board, it's the internet, don't get stressed by someone who doesn't agree with you - you'll never get everyone to agree with you. If you can have a constructive conversation on the internet - an increasing rarity - be happy.
As for Krugman, I find Krugman's delight over destruction (to the point where he went on cable news and suggested that creating a real life sequel to "Independence Day" would be a great idea) as "GDP positive!" to be disturbing, among other issues. This is not exactly something that one has to search for examples of, either - there are more than a few, to the point where Krugman has been parodied for this on multiple occasions.
His wild-eyed rant on CNN about how a "fake alien invasion would help GDP" - where to begin, aside from the fact that the man looked out of his mind. As far as I'm concerned, if someone can look at this video (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/15/krugman-you-know-what-this-economy-needs-a-space-alien-invasion/) and say, "Gee, he sounds like someone who I want to follow", then please, go right ahead.
"No one says enormous sustained financed spending (on anything, not just infrastructure, it could be on unneeded weapons) at multiples larger than productive economic activity is a good idea. Meaning sure, heedless debt can pose a threat to financial stability. But it's not like that now"
Well, I'm very glad that you are trusting of this government to spend money so wisely and regulate spending so well. The complete faith in the system and the small group tasked with regulating it is really quite remarkable.
"It's not like that now." Nor will it ever get out of hand, right? Nor have there ever been any examples in history, right? But we're different, right?
It's the attitude that the increasingly complex and interconnected global economy can be dialed up and down like an air conditioner that irks me. "It's fine now, right?" "Want it a little warmer, a little cooler? Easy peasy."
How much confidence do you have that you can control this? "100%?" I'm sure Bernanke wouldn't have said "Ehhhh, 50/50", but can you really have 100% confidence in controlling a system that has grown increasingly complex, even since 2008? In a system that is interconnected and relies heavily upon confidence - something that's difficult to control, especially once it is lost? Where are we, several years of ZIRP and multiple QE's later? The world isn't ending, but the ROI for what has been the easiest monetary policy in history seems rather lackluster and now we're here with weak GDP growth and little in the way to stop the Winter that we've been trying to put off and buy our way out of for so long.
I have a significant fascination with how things work. However, I tend to focus it on learning more about science, industry, other cultures and other such things. I can have my views on economic theory and monetary policy, but as I get a little older I suppose I want to devote time to topics that are ultimately more enjoyable and perhaps a tad more positive.
People lack respect for the potential volatility, complexity and fragility of the global economy - 2008 was a delightful example, but it's clear that we haven't learned anything.
Ultimately, going back to the topic at hand, as I noted above, there have been enough studies that I don't doubt that the graphs are likely "in the general vicinity" of being correct.

Jeez, nothing like sarcastic preemption to cloud the facts.
No one says enormous sustained financed spending (on anything, not just infrastructure, it could be on unneeded weapons) at multiples larger than productive economic activity is a good idea. Meaning sure, heedless debt can pose a threat to financial stability. But it's not like that now, and was not back then, and it is in all cases money we owe ourselves --- an asset. Throwing out phrases like ponzi, stealing from our kids, printing money, all that, shows only profound false misunderstanding. Damaging, too. Even Merkel does not get it. Pointing out how it really goes does enrage some.
If you cannot bear to have the name Krugman pass your eyes (his analyses are clearest and easier to understand for a layperson, imo --- 'Globally, and for the most part even within countries, a rise in debt isn’t an indication that we’re living beyond our means'), then go read Yellen, Fatas, and a host of thoughtful others.
http://fatasmihov.blogspot.com/2015/02/those-mountains-of-debt-and-assets.html
Check out the graph of 325y of UK debt:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/debt-is-money-we-owe-to-ourselves/
'Britain did not emerge impoverished from the Napoleonic Wars; the government ended up with a lot of debt, but the counterpart of this debt was that the British propertied classes owned a lot of consols.'

As Ted's linked article mentioned, Vanguard's Target Date Funds seem to be composed of these very same funds and age appropriate percentages. These target date funds automatically re-balance and do this at a lower cost and lower minimums.
For a 35 year old, I selected Vanguard's 2045 Fund (VTIVX) which has an ER of .19% and minimum of $1K:

The Robo service requires $50K and costs (.5%) and here's its portfolio:

Am I missing something here?

FYI: Vanguard’s response to the robo-adviser boom went into wide release this month, so MarketWatch asked for a recommended portfolio for a typical 35-year-old investor, as we previously did with four robo advisers and four human advisers.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-advice-you-get-from-vanguards-new-robot-human-hybrid-2015-05-18/print
Enlarged Graphic:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-advice-you-get-from-vanguards-new-robot-human-hybrid-2015-05-18?siteid=yhoof2

@davidrmoran, like I said I was joking, but I think your view of the national debt is overly simplistic. The government can certainly print the money necessary to pay those debts but to think that will have no economic impact on our children or their children or their children is sadly mistaken. It's an enormous Ponzi scheme that won't end well someday.

Oh boy, here we go...
1. If you say what you said above three times, Paul Krugman will appear. To lecture you. If you get to hear about how a faked alien invasion would be a great thing for the economy, told in wild-eyed fashion, bonus, because that's just amusing on so many levels.
2. The government can print a million bajillion dollars and it will have no negative effect. We have had so many great discoveries and advancements over the years, silly us overlooked the idea that we can print our way to prosperity. Your children and their children will thank this generation for figuring this out while they sit on the beach watching funny cat videos on Youtube and texting each other while the robots (built with printed money) do everything.
3. No, the idea that we can print and print and print does not sound like porn to politicians and their cronies. No waste or malinvestment will happen, either. Government will print and print and print and not spend it on things like infrastructure or improving education in this country, because that would be just silly. By the way, no such thing as malinvestment. Solyndra was a "valuable learning experience".
For all of this incredibly, deeply sarcastic information.... you're welcome.

Final quote from your linked article:
"Moreover, energy stocks themselves are among the worst way to play a bounce back in oil, which is very counterintuitive. 12 months after a bottom in oil, we see a subsequent 70% rally but energy stocks have been down an average of 4.8% and energy company earnings are still down an enormous 30% over the same time frame."
Frank Holmes has collected some data on previous price drops in oil and compares these drops with oil's most recent price action.
Here's a chart from linked article:

Crude déjà vu

FYI: Crude oil plunged 54% from its high last summer to its low this March and has now retraced about half of that loss. The equity strategists at Wells Fargo took a look at what typically happens to the stock market after oil gets cut in half and then stages a rebound like this.
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2015/05/17/what-happens-after-oil-gets-cut-in-half/

Of course they're being commoditized --- how many mutual funds are "me too" funds that have limited AUM and extraordinary fees? Why pay .50 or more for ABC S&P500 Index fund when you can get one (or an ETF) from Vanguard, TRowe, Schwab, etc for significantly less?
How many laughable strategy funds charge (say) 2.5 per year for buying-and-holding a handful of ETFs that you could do yourself for free? And they wonder why nobody's buying them.
We need fewer funds and more higher quality ones. But that doesn't support the Wall Street marketing machine in launching the next Latest Awesome-Sounding Alpha Gamma Up/Down Minimum Informed Strategy (tm) Classes A, C, D, R-1, R-2, and Advisor to the uninformed masses.

FYI: In 'grave strategic error,' managers have allowed products to be commoditized, report finds, but not all firms suffering.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150518/FREE/150519926?template=printart

Hi Guys,
The US, and most of the industrialized world, is awash in statistics. If you have a question that revolves around numbers, it is an easy task to quickly find a data source on the web.
Annual income in the US is an excellent example. It took about one minute and one input to secure an overwhelming array of current average annual incomes as a function of occupation and geography in the US. The obvious source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here is the Link for May, 2014:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
The list by occupational specialty is endless. For all occupations, the mean annual wage is $ 47, 230. Jungster was partially right: farmers aren’t as poorly rewarded as some might imagine, although engineers do substantially better. Farm labor contractors average $ 47, 790 annually.
But that single number is misleading. There’s a large range of incomes within the farming industry that is a function of specialty and location. See the 45-XXXX series of occupations much further down the listing to get a more refined answer. Click on the specialties to recover more geographic and distribution details.
Given the access that the Web provides, the world is only a few keystrokes away. Facts conquer speculation every time. Occupational advisors and students should examine these listings before making educational decisions.
Best Regards.

76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/are-the-suburbs-making-people-live-paycheck-to-paycheck/284586/
http://time.com/2742/nearly-half-of-america-lives-paycheck-to-paycheck/
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/retirement/one-third-high-earners-are-living-paycheck-paycheck-n342726
The details and numbers vary but the volume of articles about this has me thinking these numbers are probably not far off.

The Fed published these results in 2015 for the year 2013:
On Home Equity:
"Another measure is to compare net worth to the median sale price of an existing home in the last several years--- about $200,000. Do that and you find that the net worth of the median household is no more than the value of a median priced home. Even among the top 25 percent, net worth is never more than about 3 times the value of the median home. This suggests that our collective wealth is pretty thin. Most people have the bulk of their wealth in home equity. (Talk about scary notions.)"
chasing_the_big_dogs

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/05/17/americans-average-net-worth-by-age-how-do-you-comp.aspx?source=eogyholnk0000001
I don't know if these numbers mean anything any more. They are just too low to be believable.
Look at the numbers for 65-69 excluding home equity. The question is: how are these people living? If they are collecting SS, even with a fully paid off house it would be a difficult life. And, I'm guessing these people in this range were not top SS earners.

@hank: "Not exactly. I'll use the ATM card at 10 different banks where the limit is $500 each". That's kind of expensive isn' it ? With the average ATM fee @$4.35 it could cost you as much as $43.50 to withdraw $5000. Hank.........we need to talk !
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted