In reviewing comparative wealth statistics, I’ve come across what seems to be a conceptual inconsistency with significant implications: the exclusion of the net present value of future public pension entitlements from household wealth data.

Most international datasets (OECD, Eurostat, WID, etc.) seem to define net wealth in terms of private, marketable assets. So they ignore pay-as-you-go systems (like Social Security or most EU public pensions) while fully counting capitalised retirement savings.

An example: If you're a German pensioner with €0 in savings but a guaranteed €2,000/month state pension (NPV €400-500k), you’re counted as having zero wealth. If you're a U.S. retiree with $500,000 in a 401(k), you’re recorded as wealthy—even if your income is uncertain.

This seems to produce systematic distortions: – Welfare states appear poorer than they are – Inequality is overstated, particularly in bottom quintiles – Cross-country comparisons (e.g. US vs EU) become misleading – Lifetime income security is ignored in favour of asset visibility

In a nutshell, it could mean that public servants (a typical German "Beamter") with high lifelong entitlements are recorded as destitute—while financially insecure asset holders (in terms of over-a-lifetime-regular-income) are logged as rich.

Has anyone come across serious attempts to correct for this—either by imputing NPV of entitlements into net wealth, or by proposing alternative metrics of lifetime economic security? Or am I missing something?

Would appreciate pointers—across public finance, economic statistics, or political economy.

#Wealth #Inequality #PublicFinance #Pensions #EconomicData