Yes, your power law analysis is plausible. But I'm concerned about comparing numbers from different surveys. Self-reported net worth might be very different from net worth as observed by wealthx. Also, representative response doesn't seem very plausible to me. It could well be that wanting to claim to have $100m causes response.
Wealthx makes a distributional claim (p6): 28% of people with 30m+ have 100m+. Only 19% in America (p9).
Very good points, thanks!
2^(-1.9) = 26.7%, so the power law that I obtained fits the distributional claim that WealthX makes.
I spent more time looking for data, and I've gotten varying estimates for income percentiles.
The latter two bullet points seem incompatible with the first: I find this very disconcerting....
[Added: Solipsist made good comments that partially account for the phenomenon, and Douglas_Knight pointed out that the figure of $200m+ below should be $30m+]
This article reports that Harvard has 2,964 alumni worth $200+ million, with a total wealth of $622 billion. These figures are staggering:
Note that Bill Gates "only" has ~$75 billion and that Mark Zuckerberg "only" has ~$30 billion, so that they don't account for Harvard's decisive advantage over other universities.
What is going on here? Why would Harvard come out ahead by such a large margin? Its acceptance rate is smaller than those of Stanford, Yale and Princeton, but by no more than 25%. Moreover, this has been true historically
One can ask a similar question of University of Pennsylvania, which is significantly less selective than Yale and Princeton, but has a decisive advantage over them.
Some possible explanations for the discrepancy:
Regardless of which of these explanations hold, there remains a question of why they would hold.
Is Harvard a better choice than other universities for students who aspire to be wealthy than other top schools?