4 ms·

I did a back of the envelope calculation for techie scum and how much we make on average. If we assume that there are two million of us, each earning on averag

by antt 8y ago

I did a back of the envelope calculation for techie scum and how much we make on average. If we assume that there are two million of us, each earning on average $200,000 and saving $80,000 of that it means our wealth as a class grows by 160,000,000,000 per year. The Forbs Rich List's wealth increased by 2,900,000,000,000 last year. You can see the three extra zeros at the end. It's not the top 20% or the techie scum, or whichever other group is currently not underwater that's destroying the economy. It's much easier to make those with nothing attack those with little for the benefit of those with everything than to fix the economy.

markbnj 8y ago
> If we assume that there are two million of us, each earning on average $200,000 and saving $80,000 At least the last two of those numbers seem very high to me. $200k might be the average if you're just looking at major metro tech markets like SF and NYC, but that's not going to get you anywhere near 2m people is it? I suspect the true average compensation for technology professionals is less than half that.
- antt 8y ago
  The point is that even with the highest possible numbers us techie scum are still a rounding error to the national economy. Which makes us an incredibly useful punching bag for the economist who wants to try his hand at populism without jeopardizing his tenure.
- moate 8y ago
  I think the gross OVER estimation helps his point. Even if those things are true (they feel extremely high to me) the other group he's pointing out is substantially worse in the grand scheme of things.
nerdponx 8y ago
You can distribute that money to literally 1 billion people and everyone would still get $2,900. It's a truly unbelievable amount of money.
Gibbon1 8y ago
> You can see the three extra zeros at the end. It's not the top 20% or the techie scum, or whichever other group is currently not underwater that's destroying the economy. Thing I find grimly humorous is how doctors have been waking up to the realization that they're just 'the help' and the over-class think's they make too much. Also like tech scum dogs the tax structure is designed to keep they and their spawn from breaking through into the over-class.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Progressive tax rates inhibit social mobility by making it difficult for those lower down on the ladder to accumulate wealth.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    The system is designed to only allow people that made their money 'the right way' into the over-class. Which in this case means passive capital gains vs active or earned. So you can 'invest' half a million and 12 years to become a doctor and get hit with close to 50% taxes if you are successful. And the amount of your student loan expenses that's deductible is nil. Compare with borrowing half a million to 'invest' in stocks.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      Interest on student loan debt is tax deductible, not the principle. Interest on margin debt is tax deductible, not the principle. It's the same. Also 'investing' in stocks is investing. It's not a fake investment or a scam. Lower income people pay 0% taxes on capital gains, and some online brokerage houses charge 0% commission. Essentially, anyone can invest in the stock market. It's a lot better than 'investing' in lottery tickets. There I used the quotes appropriately, because lottery tickets are gambling, not investing. The difference between investing and gambling is investing is when the mathematical odds are in your favor, gambling is when they are not.
      - Gibbon1 8y ago
commandlinefan 8y ago
I grew up poor as hell, but people all around me kept saying, "stay in school, study, work hard, and you can rise above this." I believed them, and I did - and here I am, actually living a pretty comfortable life, giving my kids the things my parents never could. But I've always suspected that somehow, some way, somebody was going to come along and take all of this away from me and make sure that I would die as poor as I was born. If it does happen, this will be how.
- specialist 8y ago
  How? By restoring the marginal tax of 70% to income over $10m?
bradknowles 8y ago
I'm not making $200k. And if I was living in a place where I could make $200k, then I certainly wouldn't be able to save $80k -- not when the average 1BR apartment in that area was going for $2100 per month in 2013, and there has been at least 20% YOY compound growth in the years since.

by antt 8y ago

markbnj 8y ago

> If we assume that there are two million of us, each earning on average $200,000 and saving $80,000 At least the last two of those numbers seem very high to me. $200k might be the average if you're just looking at major metro tech markets like SF and NYC, but that's not going to get you anywhere near 2m people is it? I suspect the true average compensation for technology professionals is less than half that.

antt 8y ago
The point is that even with the highest possible numbers us techie scum are still a rounding error to the national economy. Which makes us an incredibly useful punching bag for the economist who wants to try his hand at populism without jeopardizing his tenure.
moate 8y ago
I think the gross OVER estimation helps his point. Even if those things are true (they feel extremely high to me) the other group he's pointing out is substantially worse in the grand scheme of things.

nerdponx 8y ago

You can distribute that money to literally 1 billion people and everyone would still get $2,900. It's a truly unbelievable amount of money.

Gibbon1 8y ago

> You can see the three extra zeros at the end. It's not the top 20% or the techie scum, or whichever other group is currently not underwater that's destroying the economy. Thing I find grimly humorous is how doctors have been waking up to the realization that they're just 'the help' and the over-class think's they make too much. Also like tech scum dogs the tax structure is designed to keep they and their spawn from breaking through into the over-class.

skookumchuck 8y ago
Progressive tax rates inhibit social mobility by making it difficult for those lower down on the ladder to accumulate wealth.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  The system is designed to only allow people that made their money 'the right way' into the over-class. Which in this case means passive capital gains vs active or earned. So you can 'invest' half a million and 12 years to become a doctor and get hit with close to 50% taxes if you are successful. And the amount of your student loan expenses that's deductible is nil. Compare with borrowing half a million to 'invest' in stocks.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    Interest on student loan debt is tax deductible, not the principle. Interest on margin debt is tax deductible, not the principle. It's the same. Also 'investing' in stocks is investing. It's not a fake investment or a scam. Lower income people pay 0% taxes on capital gains, and some online brokerage houses charge 0% commission. Essentially, anyone can invest in the stock market. It's a lot better than 'investing' in lottery tickets. There I used the quotes appropriately, because lottery tickets are gambling, not investing. The difference between investing and gambling is investing is when the mathematical odds are in your favor, gambling is when they are not.
    - Gibbon1 8y ago

commandlinefan 8y ago

I grew up poor as hell, but people all around me kept saying, "stay in school, study, work hard, and you can rise above this." I believed them, and I did - and here I am, actually living a pretty comfortable life, giving my kids the things my parents never could. But I've always suspected that somehow, some way, somebody was going to come along and take all of this away from me and make sure that I would die as poor as I was born. If it does happen, this will be how.

specialist 8y ago
How? By restoring the marginal tax of 70% to income over $10m?

bradknowles 8y ago

I'm not making $200k. And if I was living in a place where I could make $200k, then I certainly wouldn't be able to save $80k -- not when the average 1BR apartment in that area was going for $2100 per month in 2013, and there has been at least 20% YOY compound growth in the years since.