For comparison, Gen X had 9% of the wealth, and Boomers had 21%. The largest generation in history did everything they were told, became the most educated generation, and now they’re the poorest.

Here are the official numbers from the fed for millennial wealth

Zuckerburg owns a very large amount of Facebook stock, and he sells it on a pre-determined, fixed, schedule. The current amount of stock he has is around $80 billion.

To find out how much he’s sold on what schedule, the easiest answer is Yahoo Meta, insider transactions: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/insider-transactions?p=META

You can also look at the their 2022 proxy report official in Meta SEC filings https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680122000043/meta2022definitiveproxysta.htm

Zuckerburg has 93,675,733 vested shares, 831,706 class A shares, and 349,745,790 class B shares a total of 350,577,496 shares (we don’t care about voting rights, just valuation). At today’s market value, those shares are worth $296.73 each (October 30, 2023). We multiple those numbers together and get $104,026,860,388.08.

So, that rounds to $104 billion dollars in Meta stock.

Finally, he controls additional shares via Chan Zuckerberg foundation, Mark Zuckerberg Trust, and assorted other groups.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    32·
    8 months ago

    “clearly cannot be accounted for by the population distribution”

    Source please, what % of the population did boomers represent when they were 40 vs millennials that are currently 40?

    Median or average in this case won’t really change a thing, as long as both sets of data are the same, the point is that you have yet to provide a source that confirms the conclusion brought forward by your post.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
      48·
      8 months ago

      Source please, what % of the population did boomers represent when they were 40 vs millennials that are currently 40?

      You’re the one who keeps trying to make the case here, so why don’t you look it up? It’s pretty obvious though that it must’ve been a lot higher than 2.4% (which is the millennial wealth excluding Zucc) in order to get to where it is in the data set. The fact that you continue arguing here instead of pulling up the data really says all we need to know. If you actually cared to prove your position then you’d pull up the numbers the way I did. You don’t do that because you just want to troll.

      Median or average in this case won’t really change a thing, as long as both sets of data are the same, the point is that you have yet to provide a source that confirms the conclusion brought forward by your post.

      Zucc single handedly owns around half the millennial wealth, obviously there’s a big difference between average and median wealth.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        41·
        8 months ago

        You just proved you don’t understand what you’re sharing. Zuckerberg is 2% of millennial’s wealth, not 2% of everyone’s wealth 😂 That’s 2% of 4.8%!

        I don’t pull the info because the burden of proof is on you.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
          48·
          8 months ago

          You just proved you don’t understand what you’re sharing. Zuckerberg is 2% of millennial’s wealth, not 2% of everyone’s wealth 😂 That’s 2% of 4.8%!

          I was very clearly talking about millennial wealth there. Work on your reading comprehension.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            31·
            8 months ago

            It's pretty obvious though that it must've been a lot higher than 2.4% (which is the millennial wealth excluding Zucc)

            Were you? Because from the original post it’s 4.8% (4.4% based on the other numbers) and Zuckerberg represents 2% of millennial wealth, not 2% of total wealth, which means 4.8% - (2% x 4.8%) = 4.704% or 4.4% - (2% x 4.4%) = 4.312%

            Zuckerberg doesn’t own 40%+ of all of millennial’s wealth which is what you implied by saying that millennials without Zuckerberg = 2.4% (4.4 - 2) of total wealth 🙄