Interesting, and probably a decent estimate of wealth percentiles across a population. But the more I think about it...this makes too many simplifying assumptions for personal benchmarks or planning.

For instance:

- It's linear, but net worth usually isn't.
- It relies on calendar age, which matters less than "career age" (number of years working).
- It implies a constant savings rate, regardless of your income, of just 10% pre-tax (and effectively less, since even conservative investments could yield a large chunk of that).

Consequently, it gives pie-in-the-sky numbers for lower incomes and earlier careers, but unambitious numbers for higher incomes or later careers.

At age 24, two years out of college, earning just $45,000 x 2.4 = $108,000 net worth. Not happening.

At age 35, earning $90,000 x 3.5 = $315,000. Ambitious, but doable.

At age 50, earning $200,000 x 5.0 = $1,000,000. Relatively easy, after so many decades of compounding.

Just arbitrary examples, of course. And it's good to have some type of sanity-check for your financial goals. But I'd argue that it's more practical to make decisions based on savings rate, and track financial progress in terms of passive returns (e.g., dividends) as a % of baseline cost of living.