A journalist from the Wall Street Journal wrote to me a week ago to ask what the numbers that I use in the opening pages of my book Limitarianism would look like today. In particular, she asked whether I could calculate for her the “lifetime equivalent hourly income” of Elon Musk’s current assets today.
Short answer: today that number is 5 million dollars per hour.
Longer answer: The “lifetime equivalent hourly wage” that I calculated in my book was assuming Musk would never take holidays, work 50 hours a week and work until 65. His 809 billion estimated assets would then translate into an hourly equivalent wage of 6,914,530 dollars per hour (hence almost 7 million per hour). Assuming he works 70 hours a week and until he turns 75, it would still amount to 4,938,950 dollars per hour – almost 5 million per hour.
That is: if Elon Musk were paid an hourly wage for his work, he’d need to earn about 5 million dollars per hour to amass that fortune. Of course, this should not be taken literally. There is no such wage. Moreover, this estimate assumes he doesn’t spend any of it. The point of this “lifetime equivalent hourly wage” is rather to make an extremely abstract number, that most people cannot cognitively process, understandable.
I’m glad this journalist asked, but that doesn’t mean she will use it, or even less so that the WSJ will publish any of this – it has happened a few times that USA/UK journalists interview me for a piece on extreme wealth that then doesn’t get published – sometimes they ghost me, sometimes they tell me they wrote the piece (and even share it) but the paper decides not to publish it.
Rising extreme wealth concentration and the relentless drive of the überwealthy to keep accumulating more lies at the core of almost all the world’s most lethal problems. It takes central stage in Luke Kemp’s masterpiece Goliath’s Curse, in which he asks what makes empires collapse. Kemp argues that our current empire is global because of the way our economic system is so radically global, and that if this empire goes down, it will affect all of us (and not just wipe out a geographically bounded empire as it did in the past, for example with the Aztec or the Roman Empire). While Kemp is pretty pessimistic at our odds of saving ourselves from collapse, he argues that it requires in any case two things – a cap on wealth and deep democracy.
Yet we are still not doing anything about extreme wealth concentration, because (a) most people vote for economically right-wing parties who prefer protecting the (extremely) rich above addressing the serious problems humanity is facing, (b) the extremely rich have in too many places captured our collective decision making (often via their corporate structures), (c) and too many regular people are still ignorant about the harmful effects of extreme wealth.
I think the only reasonable course of action is to double down on our efforts to address (a), (b), and (c).
{ 11 comments }
agcooper 04.09.26 at 10:57 am
I’m sorry to sound jaded and I truly respect your prodigious efforts in studying and communicating this problem but it just “feels” like the power differential has become prohibitive. The wealth amassed since the 1990s has created so many ‘generational-proof’ fortunes, even the passage of time is only going to have a limited effect.
Perhaps the most likely solution regarding the extremely wealthy will occur when their security guards turn on them because their wages have become worthless on account of the impending societal collapse precipitated by their employers.
One certainly can’t reason with this kind of behavior and mindset:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/18/google-sergey-brin-california-billionaire-tax
MisterMr 04.09.26 at 3:58 pm
Part of it I think is just bubbling up of asset values, like when one buys an house and then the value of the house goes up because the interest rate goes down, so one appears to be richer but the house is the same.
It is still linked to wealth accumulation (because the interest rate goes down because of too much money chasing too few investiment opportunity), but not puerly wealth accumulation IMHO.
Ingrid Robeyns 04.09.26 at 8:24 pm
just deleted a comment because the poster made a ridiculous interpretation of what I wrote, and either doesn’t have, or pretends not to have, any knowledge about the societal discussion (or academic literature) on the harms of extreme wealth concentration (about which I wrote a whole book and gave a zillion interviews that are on the web). No reason to think that was in good faith. I delete comments on my threads very rarely, but anything that looks like trolling will not be published.
Austin G Loomis 04.10.26 at 1:48 am
agcooper skrev:
“IRST OF NOVEMBER, — the Earthquake-day, —
There are traces of age in <a href="http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm"the one-hoss shay,
A general flavor of mild decay,
But nothing local, as one may say.
There couldn’t be, — for the Deacon’s art
Had made it so like in every part
That there wasn’t a chance for one to start.
For the wheels were just as strong as the thills,
And the floor was just as strong as the sills,
And the panels just as strong as the floor,
And the whipple-tree neither less nor more,
And the back crossbar as strong as the fore,
And spring and axle and hub encore.
And yet, as a whole, it is past a doubt
In another hour it will be worn out!”
“I haven’t got much time. I pray this record of our experiment survives. We dreamed of creating an empire that could never break down… and we succeeded.”
mw 04.10.26 at 9:59 pm
I wonder if Musk isn’t the worst example that could be chosen to illustrate this point. My quick search indicated that > 99% of his wealth is in the form of stock in companies that he founded and runs. He apparently has little cash in reserve. Not only that, but the stock — particularly Tesla — is arguably worth what it is because of Musk himself rather than current sales and profits. Shares of Tesla are essentially now bets on Musk’s ability to deliver on his outsized promises. If the government expropriated Musk’s shares, he’d have little incentive to keep working on these companies (as opposed to moving on and starting something new). But if he did that, the shares the government seized would crash in value. In any case, it’s not as if Musk had hoarded a huge portfolio of cash and hard assets. His wealth is, essentially, people’s belief in his ability to create and grow companies.
Tm 04.13.26 at 7:07 am
“His wealth is, essentially, people’s belief in his ability to create and grow companies.”
It’s a bubble and it will pop. Maybe it has started to pop already. Musk is the most extreme but also very illustrative example. Tesla is at least 10 times overvalued by any reasonable measure. As an automaker, BYD is clearly more successful and also better positioned for future growth, and Tsla is valued 10 times more. The question is how long this pyramid game can go on.
Tm 04.13.26 at 7:22 am
“(b) the extremely rich have in too many places captured our collective decision making”
Even prior to the decision-making, they control >90% of the mass media. They determine The Narrative. Only in extraordinary circumstances, like yesterday in Hungary, can reality break through against their Orwellian chokehold on the public discourse.
mw 04.13.26 at 2:46 pm
Tm @6 “It’s a bubble and it will pop.”
If you’re right then Musk’s paper net worth will crash right along with the stock values held by his fellow investor-shareholders.
engels 04.13.26 at 8:52 pm
I’m pretty sure this kind of power isn’t just in people’s heads:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q3ndj7052o
MisterMr 04.13.26 at 10:20 pm
About Musk’s wealth and bubbles, the problem is that we are (since decades) in an environment where too much investiment money is chasing too few invetiment opportunities, so bubbles can trive for a long time and, if something pops (like in 2008) a lot of stuff will go down and not only the bubbly one.
In other words, it is perfectly possible that Musk is a bubble but that its wealth will not pop on a timescale that is relevant (the same is true for crypto).
Barry 04.14.26 at 4:38 pm
nw: “Shares of Tesla are essentially now bets on Musk’s ability to deliver on his outsized promises. ”
That belief has survived a lot of gravity over the past several years.
Comments on this entry are closed.