The bastardized term of "wealth" used here, however, refers simply to material possessions even when not in sufficient quantities to provide any passive lifestyle advantages; suddenly a paid off car worth $5,000 is "wealth." The estimated $30,000 in equity I possess on my $200,000 home is "wealth". It's all a bit frivolous.

By definition, the poor and middle classes don't possess true wealth. Their value is their human capital and time, which they exchange for money. Even the "working rich" - doctors and lawyers - don't routinely possess "wealth" in the traditional sense of the term.

Then we compare the $30,000 equity I possess to actual wealth... such as the land under a shopping mall. What is the use in such an exercise?

NEWS FLASH: People who own really valuable stuff possess really valuable stuff. The rest of us don't. Let's write books about this and study the shocking phenomenon?

You simply can't compare actual wealth - such as the land under a shopping mall, which generates sufficient revenue for many people to live comfortably - to "wealth".

Now, demographically... Why would anyone be surprised that a significant portion of the population has zero wealth? Honestly I'm surprised it's only 25% who have zero. How much "wealth" should a university student have? How about someone who's been working for a few years? How about someone who's been retired for twenty years and expects to die within the next ten?

Middle class people gradually build up a small stock of "wealth" (we used to call this "savings") throughout their working careers. Then after retirement they gradually draw it down until they die.

So yes, it is not surprising that many people have zero or negative wealth.