5 ms·

60k euro puts you in the top 0.11%[0] globally in terms of income. "It would take the average labourer in Zimbabwe 71 years to earn the same amount." [0]http:

60k euro puts you in the top 0.11%[0] globally in terms of income. "It would take the average labourer in Zimbabwe 71 years to earn the same amount." [0]http://www.globalrichlist.com/ http://www.globalrichlist.com/

danharaj 7y ago
GP already told you: living off ownership of capital.
- benj111 7y ago
  That also includes pensioners, some of whom may not be that well off.
  - marvin 7y ago
    Treating pensions as capital is an interesting twist. Relatively accurate in one economical sense, but it's a bit of an edge case and not accurate in others. Pensions are usually a part of the "social contract", and usually pensioners have only a few years of expected healthy life left. So in most cases, a pension is more akin to having decent savings than having enough capital to live off investment income perpetually. Also, crucially, pensions rarely pass on money to inheritors, and almost never enough that the inheritors can live indefinitely from the income.
    - benj111 7y ago
      It depends on what country you live in, in the UK at least you have a small state pension and private pensions can be saved on top. These can optionally be used to buy an annuity. 'A few years' seems an understatement for what is reasonably expected to be 20+ years, I'm not sure what difference the healthy modifier brings. But yes, an annuity wouldn't generally allow you to pass on family wealth. That isn't the dividing line that was being discussed though.
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    Redefine: their earning from capital investments alone are enough to put them in the top 10% of the population.
    - benj111 7y ago
      Top 10% of assets? This [1] suggests that $1,180,000 would put you in the top 10% in the US, which if you're living off (and in) it won't stretch that far. If top 10% of income earners, that's quite a movable feast. If I have $1,000,000 in shares earning 10% and taking all as income, am I rich, if I've got $10,000,000 in less risky investments, and after reinvesting to account for inflation, earning 1% the same amount of rich? One advantage of taking an income from assets is that you can choose how and when. I suspect the latter approach notionally invested in some prudent fashion would give a figure comparable to a wage, I misses out on some big differences though, no having to work, worry about getting sick, having the money there if you need is a major psychological boost, and if you want to buy a house, you can, plus you can pass on assets, which you can't do with a job. [1] https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-states/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta...
alexgmcm 7y ago
But the variance in the cost of living globally is also huge - so just comparing income doesn't really make sense.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  It costs pretty much the same to live in a tin shack with no running water or electricity and eat rice and beans for every meal everywhere. This whole "cost of living" thing is a rationalization to make westerners feel better.
  - asutekku 7y ago
    I’m pretty sure a bag of rice is way more cheaper in the countries where it is produced versus the countries where it’s exported. In some countries it’s more expensive to be poor than in others.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      $8.43 gets you 20 pounds of rice in the west, 42 cents a pound. How much cheaper could it be? Put it this way, India is a relatively wealthy nation and a large proportion of middle class Indians don't have flush toilets. How can you compare that to a middle class European with a straight face? It's not that the cost of living is lower it's that standards of living are. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Long-Grain-Enriched-Rice-20-lb https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Long-Grain-Enriched-R...
  - Aaargh20318 7y ago
    > It costs pretty much the same to live in a tin shack with no running water or electricity and eat rice and beans for every meal everywhere. No it doesn't. First of all, the price of land can vary wildly. One square meter in the middle of Amsterdam will be a bit more than a square meter in Bumfuck, Alabama. IF you can buy land at all, in some places you can only lease it (you could own a home, but not the ground it sits on). Then there's all kinds of taxes you'd have to pay, just for owning that piece of land. A 19.5ft by 8ft parking spot in London was on the market a few years back for £350,000, and you won't even be allowed to build a shed on it, just park your car. An empty lot without even a tin shack can cost more than a mansion, depending on location.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> If that isn't upper class what is 0.01%? A statistical threshold. Europe has a landed aristocracy with political power, tax and social advantages and investments to last generations. The upper class lives off investment income. The middle class requires income to achieve its goals (if not survive). The practical effect of this distinction is people over whom employers have power versus those over whom employment, if it exists, is electively pursues.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Sharlin 7y ago
"Class" is intrinsically culture-specific. I'm not sure whether "global upper class" is a meaningful concept.
romanovcode 7y ago
60k NET EUR is a lot of money tho
asutekku 7y ago
Yes, globally, but that’s a completely different story in Europe where this story is based in. The global upper class is not the same as upper class in germany or in italy or in finland.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
esotericn 7y ago
Yes, it's a high income globally. "Class" in the European sense is not an income based thing. It falls apart a bit at the extremes (what is Jeff Bezos?) but it'd be incorrect to categorise e.g. a CEO as being upper-class despite them being in the 99th percentile by income in their country. The term really describes nobility, inheritance, large land ownership. Existing in a different 'class'.
- rexgallorum2 7y ago
  For the German bourgeoisie, it's education and cultivation. (Education and profession are probably more important class markers than actual income or wealth.) The genuine upper class may or may not care about either because their status is drawn from other things.

danharaj 7y ago

GP already told you: living off ownership of capital.

benj111 7y ago
That also includes pensioners, some of whom may not be that well off.
- marvin 7y ago
  Treating pensions as capital is an interesting twist. Relatively accurate in one economical sense, but it's a bit of an edge case and not accurate in others. Pensions are usually a part of the "social contract", and usually pensioners have only a few years of expected healthy life left. So in most cases, a pension is more akin to having decent savings than having enough capital to live off investment income perpetually. Also, crucially, pensions rarely pass on money to inheritors, and almost never enough that the inheritors can live indefinitely from the income.
  - benj111 7y ago
    It depends on what country you live in, in the UK at least you have a small state pension and private pensions can be saved on top. These can optionally be used to buy an annuity. 'A few years' seems an understatement for what is reasonably expected to be 20+ years, I'm not sure what difference the healthy modifier brings. But yes, an annuity wouldn't generally allow you to pass on family wealth. That isn't the dividing line that was being discussed though.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  Redefine: their earning from capital investments alone are enough to put them in the top 10% of the population.
  - benj111 7y ago
    Top 10% of assets? This [1] suggests that $1,180,000 would put you in the top 10% in the US, which if you're living off (and in) it won't stretch that far. If top 10% of income earners, that's quite a movable feast. If I have $1,000,000 in shares earning 10% and taking all as income, am I rich, if I've got $10,000,000 in less risky investments, and after reinvesting to account for inflation, earning 1% the same amount of rich? One advantage of taking an income from assets is that you can choose how and when. I suspect the latter approach notionally invested in some prudent fashion would give a figure comparable to a wage, I misses out on some big differences though, no having to work, worry about getting sick, having the money there if you need is a major psychological boost, and if you want to buy a house, you can, plus you can pass on assets, which you can't do with a job. [1] https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-states/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta...

alexgmcm 7y ago

But the variance in the cost of living globally is also huge - so just comparing income doesn't really make sense.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
It costs pretty much the same to live in a tin shack with no running water or electricity and eat rice and beans for every meal everywhere. This whole "cost of living" thing is a rationalization to make westerners feel better.
- asutekku 7y ago
  I’m pretty sure a bag of rice is way more cheaper in the countries where it is produced versus the countries where it’s exported. In some countries it’s more expensive to be poor than in others.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    $8.43 gets you 20 pounds of rice in the west, 42 cents a pound. How much cheaper could it be? Put it this way, India is a relatively wealthy nation and a large proportion of middle class Indians don't have flush toilets. How can you compare that to a middle class European with a straight face? It's not that the cost of living is lower it's that standards of living are. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Long-Grain-Enriched-Rice-20-lb https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Long-Grain-Enriched-R...
- Aaargh20318 7y ago
  > It costs pretty much the same to live in a tin shack with no running water or electricity and eat rice and beans for every meal everywhere. No it doesn't. First of all, the price of land can vary wildly. One square meter in the middle of Amsterdam will be a bit more than a square meter in Bumfuck, Alabama. IF you can buy land at all, in some places you can only lease it (you could own a home, but not the ground it sits on). Then there's all kinds of taxes you'd have to pay, just for owning that piece of land. A 19.5ft by 8ft parking spot in London was on the market a few years back for £350,000, and you won't even be allowed to build a shed on it, just park your car. An empty lot without even a tin shack can cost more than a mansion, depending on location.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> If that isn't upper class what is 0.01%? A statistical threshold. Europe has a landed aristocracy with political power, tax and social advantages and investments to last generations. The upper class lives off investment income. The middle class requires income to achieve its goals (if not survive). The practical effect of this distinction is people over whom employers have power versus those over whom employment, if it exists, is electively pursues.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Sharlin 7y ago

"Class" is intrinsically culture-specific. I'm not sure whether "global upper class" is a meaningful concept.

romanovcode 7y ago

60k NET EUR is a lot of money tho

asutekku 7y ago

Yes, globally, but that’s a completely different story in Europe where this story is based in. The global upper class is not the same as upper class in germany or in italy or in finland.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

esotericn 7y ago

Yes, it's a high income globally. "Class" in the European sense is not an income based thing. It falls apart a bit at the extremes (what is Jeff Bezos?) but it'd be incorrect to categorise e.g. a CEO as being upper-class despite them being in the 99th percentile by income in their country. The term really describes nobility, inheritance, large land ownership. Existing in a different 'class'.

rexgallorum2 7y ago
For the German bourgeoisie, it's education and cultivation. (Education and profession are probably more important class markers than actual income or wealth.) The genuine upper class may or may not care about either because their status is drawn from other things.