4 ms·
> Darcy's worth £681K a year and his friend half that. In the Valley or London, what's that, a director level at a FAANG, and a tech lead? One big difference b
by roywiggins 7y ago
> Darcy's worth £681K a year and his friend half that. In the Valley or London, what's that, a director level at a FAANG, and a tech lead?
One big difference being, when he dies, that income reverts to his heirs and their heirs. If he was earning that as a wage, it wouldn't. So it's not directly comparable.
- adrianN 7y agoIf he was earning that as a wage, he'd be working long hours every day.
- _archon_ 7y agoDepends on the rate. To quote Steve Martin, "All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work." You and I could make Mr. Darcy wages on an hour of work a week, providing that we could find someone willing to pay it :-)
- thaumasiotes 7y agoTrue, the income comparison is spurious, but the followup statistic is directly comparable: > Using the annual yield to derive asset [value], the author in another paper put Darcy's net worth at £16.8m - £28m.
- benj111 7y agoI wonder of the figure takes into account the inflation landscape (very low) at that time. I couldn't go out and buy low risk Gilts and get that income today, I'd need index linked gilts, and they wouldn't be paying 3% after inflation.