OP, since you believe AI is nothing but hype, I posted your table into Claude Max.
Here is what he said about your table:
Now the assessment.
The $10M row is internally broken that's the clear error. The header says "Net Worth ," which makes the "Americans" column a cumulative top-tail count: how many people are worth at least that much. Such a column must strictly decrease as the threshold climbs, because everyone worth $10M is automatically also worth $9M. But the table goes 1,700,000 at $8M 1,500,000 at $9M back up to 1,700,000 at $10M. You cannot have more people worth $10M than worth $9M. The "% Pop" (0.44% 0.50%) and "1 in X" (227 200) values move the same impossible direction. This is the row TOUCHDOWN! flagged in the thread, and he's right. It's almost certainly a typo where the $10M figure should be smaller than the $9M one something like ~1,200,000 or ~1,300,000.
The whole "Americans" column is mislabeled as cumulative anyway. Even setting the typo aside, the numbers don't behave like a true "" series. If 24M people are worth $1M and 11M are worth $2M, then 13M people sit in the $1M-$2M band, and so on. The differences between consecutive rows are the per-band counts and those are fine as a bucketed reading, but the column then isn't cumulative in the sense the "Cumulative U.S." column tries to be. The table essentially has two competing "cumulative" interpretations and they don't reconcile.
The "Cumulative U.S. %" column doesn't agree with the other columns. This is the bigger structural problem. If 7% of the population is worth $1M (the "% Pop" column and the opening post both say this), then the cumulative share at the $1M line should be ~7%, not 32%. Yet "Cumulative U.S." starts at 32% and falls to 22%, 16%, 12%… These two columns are measuring different things but are placed side by side as if consistent. A "% of population at or above this net worth" can only have one value per row it can't be 7% in one column and 32% in another. So one of them is wrong, or they're labeled misleadingly.
The headline framing is also overstated. The post opens "If your net worth is $1M, there are 24M Americans in your group, ~7%, 1 in 14." The 7% / 1-in-14 / 24M figures are at least mutually consistent (24M / ~340M 7%, and 1/0.07 14). But "7% are millionaires" measured per person including children is misleading millionaire statistics are almost always per household, and roughly 18% of U.S. households have a $1M+ net worth in recent Fed data, while the per-adult share is much lower. The table never declares household vs. individual, which is the exact ambiguity multiple posters called out. So the base figure isn't crazy, but it's presented without the definition that determines whether it's right.
The soft columns are arbitrary, not wrong. "Age Band" (55 climbing to 69) and "Lifestyle Tier" are editorial labels, not data they imply the typical age of someone at each net-worth level, which is plausible directionally (wealth accumulates with age) but isn't sourced and shouldn't be read as fact. "Wealthy / financial" and the truncated "Ultra-high-net-" are just sloppy/cut-off cell text.
Bottom line: the table is wrong in one provable way and misleading in two structural ways. The provable error is the $10M row, where a supposedly cumulative count rises instead of falling mathematically impossible. The structural problems are (1) the "Americans/% Pop" column and the "Cumulative U.S. %" column give two irreconcilable answers for the same thing, and (2) the millionaire share is stated without saying whether it's per-person or per-household, which is the difference between "roughly plausible" and "off by 23." The directional story (fewer people as you go up, exclusivity rises) is fine; the specific numbers don't hold together.
So is he correct or not?
