5 ms·

As the article notes, an increasingly common path to the 1% is through skilled labor. I think this type of earner would have more in common with a 50%er than a

As the article notes, an increasingly common path to the 1% is through skilled labor. I think this type of earner would have more in common with a 50%er than a 0.1%er. My family has been in the 1% for a few years and we’re just bottom-rung individual contributors at FAANGs. 50% of our net worth is in our house. We don’t run or have stakes in any private businesses. No investment properties. The only thing that sets us apart is while an upper middle class family might do a European vacation one year, buy a car the next, and redo their bathroom the next, we do in the same year. Otherwise, I imagine our lives and aspirations are similar.

hailwren 7y ago
I was skeptical, then I checked [1] and apparently even if you separate by state you only need a household income of $512k to be in the top 1%. High, but certainly not unfathomably so to HN readers. 1 - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to-be-in-the-top-1percent-in-every-us-state.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to...
- appleiigs 7y ago
  Important to note it's household income. If a family has 2 software devs at a FAANG (not the OP specifically), quite likely to get to 1% with work experience. If they are doing a european vacation, bathroom and a car one 1 year, definitely top 5%.
- bretpiatt 7y ago
  Many people end up in the 1% for a single year via sale of business, stock, etc. There's a huge difference between that type of 1% for a year and age 30-40 dual (or very high single) annual income earners. The former may retire with a $1-5M net worth, the latter is either spending heavily or retiring with a $10M+ (and likely $20M+ with reasonableiinvestment returns) nest egg.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    There is also a difference between a $150k/y family with two wage earners and one with a single wage earner. The former is likely paying for day care, etc and have higher family expenses. And a lower quality of life in general. Gets worse as you go down in income. Try two wage earners at $60k/year.
opportune 7y ago
That may be true now, but if you are saving/investing any appreciable amount of money (say, $100k/yr) then in 30 years you will also likely have generational wealth, which is another big difference.
thomasahle 7y ago
There is an interesting podcast about this on the Ezra Klein show: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/e/64086855?autoplay=true https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/e/64086... Roughly the point is that while "the working elite" is much harder to be repelled by; it is still a problem that many tasks in society that could before be done by a medium educated middle class, is now done by a few highly educated people plus a swath of people with no education. This causes the second group to have less part and prestige in their work, while the first group gets alienated from their own work, by being forced into the few fields that allow one to reach the 1%.
nabla9 7y ago
The origin of the 1% meme came from occupy movement "We are the 99%" and meant net wealth, not income. I think that's what the left still means with the 1%. >Mankiw noted that the 1 percent’s share of total income, excluding capital gains,... I'm not completely sure how the discussion turned into top 1% of income earners and specially exuding capital gains. I think it's possible that there is intentional attempt to change the discussion. If you are in the top 1% of wealth, your net wealth is roughly $7 million. If you get just 3 percent real return for you can get $210,000 a year income without working.

hailwren 7y ago

I was skeptical, then I checked [1] and apparently even if you separate by state you only need a household income of $512k to be in the top 1%. High, but certainly not unfathomably so to HN readers. 1 - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to-be-in-the-top-1percent-in-every-us-state.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to...

appleiigs 7y ago
Important to note it's household income. If a family has 2 software devs at a FAANG (not the OP specifically), quite likely to get to 1% with work experience. If they are doing a european vacation, bathroom and a car one 1 year, definitely top 5%.
bretpiatt 7y ago
Many people end up in the 1% for a single year via sale of business, stock, etc. There's a huge difference between that type of 1% for a year and age 30-40 dual (or very high single) annual income earners. The former may retire with a $1-5M net worth, the latter is either spending heavily or retiring with a $10M+ (and likely $20M+ with reasonableiinvestment returns) nest egg.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  There is also a difference between a $150k/y family with two wage earners and one with a single wage earner. The former is likely paying for day care, etc and have higher family expenses. And a lower quality of life in general. Gets worse as you go down in income. Try two wage earners at $60k/year.

opportune 7y ago

That may be true now, but if you are saving/investing any appreciable amount of money (say, $100k/yr) then in 30 years you will also likely have generational wealth, which is another big difference.

thomasahle 7y ago

There is an interesting podcast about this on the Ezra Klein show: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/e/64086855?autoplay=true https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/e/64086... Roughly the point is that while "the working elite" is much harder to be repelled by; it is still a problem that many tasks in society that could before be done by a medium educated middle class, is now done by a few highly educated people plus a swath of people with no education. This causes the second group to have less part and prestige in their work, while the first group gets alienated from their own work, by being forced into the few fields that allow one to reach the 1%.

nabla9 7y ago

The origin of the 1% meme came from occupy movement "We are the 99%" and meant net wealth, not income. I think that's what the left still means with the 1%. >Mankiw noted that the 1 percent’s share of total income, excluding capital gains,... I'm not completely sure how the discussion turned into top 1% of income earners and specially exuding capital gains. I think it's possible that there is intentional attempt to change the discussion. If you are in the top 1% of wealth, your net wealth is roughly $7 million. If you get just 3 percent real return for you can get $210,000 a year income without working.