6 ms·

This is kind of a touchy subject. I feel like a lot of people would balk at the idea of the top 1% not doing better and better, not because they have any extra

This is kind of a touchy subject. I feel like a lot of people would balk at the idea of the top 1% not doing better and better, not because they have any extra insight into the topic but because to say this seems like you're defending the ultra-rich (and by extension attacking everyone else). In reality, even if the rich aren't getting even richer at quite the rate we thought, it doesn't mean you really need to have any more sympathy for them, it just means you tweak a few lines of your rhetoric.

koheripbal 7y ago
Conflating the top 1% with the ultra-rich is another big problem. If we assume that most people achieve peak earning years between 45-50 years old, then about 30% of people end up in the top 1% at some point in their lives.
- dwiel 7y ago
  I agree with your first sentence, but I'm having a hard time with the implied reasoning in the second. Could you expand your logic a bit further?
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  this is a huge problem because if you're in the top 1% then you're probably also living in the top 1% most costly cities and towns (at least in terms of housing cost). take into account the much higher taxes and you'd only be doing a tiny bit better than the average person nationwide.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    I think "a tiny bit better" underestimates how big the gap is between "median income" and "1% income." The median individual income for the US in 2019, from data I can find (on "Don't Quit Your Day Job," which uses census data rather than Social Security data), is $40,100; the average income is $48,380. The threshold to enter the top 1% is $328,551. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country (San Jose, CA) in terms of both cost of living and taxes, and I'm making well under that $328K level. And I assure you I am doing more than "a tiny bit better" than someone making under $50K in a metro area closer to the national median. tl;dr: I really don't think anyone who's in "the 1%" is having a huge problem with their finances, unless they're staggeringly bad at money management.
    - Domenic_S 7y ago
      GP is overstating a bit but not by too much. I have friends in non-coastal states and $50k is a kingly amount of money out there. As in, renting a nice family-sized house for $500/month. At san jose's going rate of roughly $4k/month for the same thing, that would be the equivalent of a $400k/yr salary.
      - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        > At san jose's going rate of roughly $4k/month for the same thing, that would be the equivalent of a $400k/yr salary. No, it wouldn't -- conflating absolute dollars with percentages is a mistake in this kind of comparison, even though it's a very common one. You need to look at the amount of money you actually have left over after expenses. Let's throw in federal taxes based on 2019 rates for a better comparison. Person A: $50,000 a year - $8200 in taxes - ($500/mo * 12) = $35.8K after housing Person B: $400,000 - $127,000 in taxes - ($4000/mo * 12) = $225K after housing Even if we assume everything else costs eight times as much for Person B as it does for Person A, they'll still have several times left over after paying those expenses than Person A had before expenses.
        FabHK 7y ago
        Not sure I follow. Person A has 35.8K left, suppose they spend 30K, and still has something left. Person B would have to spend 30*8 = 240K, and thus does not even have enough to cover this. (In reality, things are not eight times as expensive, and as such your argument actually holds, but it does not seem to hold just as you phrased it.)
        chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        I think you did follow! I was talking about housing costs, not the rest of living costs, because in general housing is (a) your biggest expense and (b) most tied to the region you're in. Sure: gasoline, utilities, and groceries are certainly more expensive here in Santa Clara than they would be if I was still living in Tampa, Florida. But the difference is much smaller in magnitude than the difference in housing costs, and the absolute amount of money that I'm spending on those things is also less. (e.g., I pay around $3.60 a gallon in gas right now; in Tampa it's around $2.40/gal, which is a pretty astounding difference objectively, but it's not eight times less. if I drove 15,000 miles a year in a car that got just 30 mpg, I'd pay about $50 a month more here. In general, everything else follows similarly. If the $30K number you produced is "stuff Person A spends on non-housing costs," in practice Person B, even in the most expensive area, isn't spending anywhere close to $240K on the same things. It's extremely unlikely they're spending anywhere close to $60K on the same things.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  As I replied to someone else in this thread branch, the threshold for entering the 1%, at least in terms of income, is nearly $330K a year annually. The plain reading of your last sentence is that about 30% of people make that at some point in your life, which... doesn't strike me as very plausible. Are you talking about net worth instead? That's still an argument that 30% of people have over $10M in assets (in 2019 dollars) at some point in their lives, and that... also strikes me as a stretch, honestly.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    In US terms. What if we look at the same numbers in global terms? Suddenly many of the people complaining about the 1% are the 1% themselves. According to the global rich list website if you earn above $33k a year you're in the top 1% globally by income.

koheripbal 7y ago

Conflating the top 1% with the ultra-rich is another big problem. If we assume that most people achieve peak earning years between 45-50 years old, then about 30% of people end up in the top 1% at some point in their lives.

dwiel 7y ago
I agree with your first sentence, but I'm having a hard time with the implied reasoning in the second. Could you expand your logic a bit further?
thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
this is a huge problem because if you're in the top 1% then you're probably also living in the top 1% most costly cities and towns (at least in terms of housing cost). take into account the much higher taxes and you'd only be doing a tiny bit better than the average person nationwide.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I think "a tiny bit better" underestimates how big the gap is between "median income" and "1% income." The median individual income for the US in 2019, from data I can find (on "Don't Quit Your Day Job," which uses census data rather than Social Security data), is $40,100; the average income is $48,380. The threshold to enter the top 1% is $328,551. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country (San Jose, CA) in terms of both cost of living and taxes, and I'm making well under that $328K level. And I assure you I am doing more than "a tiny bit better" than someone making under $50K in a metro area closer to the national median. tl;dr: I really don't think anyone who's in "the 1%" is having a huge problem with their finances, unless they're staggeringly bad at money management.
  - Domenic_S 7y ago
    GP is overstating a bit but not by too much. I have friends in non-coastal states and $50k is a kingly amount of money out there. As in, renting a nice family-sized house for $500/month. At san jose's going rate of roughly $4k/month for the same thing, that would be the equivalent of a $400k/yr salary.
    - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
      > At san jose's going rate of roughly $4k/month for the same thing, that would be the equivalent of a $400k/yr salary. No, it wouldn't -- conflating absolute dollars with percentages is a mistake in this kind of comparison, even though it's a very common one. You need to look at the amount of money you actually have left over after expenses. Let's throw in federal taxes based on 2019 rates for a better comparison. Person A: $50,000 a year - $8200 in taxes - ($500/mo * 12) = $35.8K after housing Person B: $400,000 - $127,000 in taxes - ($4000/mo * 12) = $225K after housing Even if we assume everything else costs eight times as much for Person B as it does for Person A, they'll still have several times left over after paying those expenses than Person A had before expenses.
      - FabHK 7y ago
        Not sure I follow. Person A has 35.8K left, suppose they spend 30K, and still has something left. Person B would have to spend 30*8 = 240K, and thus does not even have enough to cover this. (In reality, things are not eight times as expensive, and as such your argument actually holds, but it does not seem to hold just as you phrased it.)
        chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        I think you did follow! I was talking about housing costs, not the rest of living costs, because in general housing is (a) your biggest expense and (b) most tied to the region you're in. Sure: gasoline, utilities, and groceries are certainly more expensive here in Santa Clara than they would be if I was still living in Tampa, Florida. But the difference is much smaller in magnitude than the difference in housing costs, and the absolute amount of money that I'm spending on those things is also less. (e.g., I pay around $3.60 a gallon in gas right now; in Tampa it's around $2.40/gal, which is a pretty astounding difference objectively, but it's not eight times less. if I drove 15,000 miles a year in a car that got just 30 mpg, I'd pay about $50 a month more here. In general, everything else follows similarly. If the $30K number you produced is "stuff Person A spends on non-housing costs," in practice Person B, even in the most expensive area, isn't spending anywhere close to $240K on the same things. It's extremely unlikely they're spending anywhere close to $60K on the same things.
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
As I replied to someone else in this thread branch, the threshold for entering the 1%, at least in terms of income, is nearly $330K a year annually. The plain reading of your last sentence is that about 30% of people make that at some point in your life, which... doesn't strike me as very plausible. Are you talking about net worth instead? That's still an argument that 30% of people have over $10M in assets (in 2019 dollars) at some point in their lives, and that... also strikes me as a stretch, honestly.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  In US terms. What if we look at the same numbers in global terms? Suddenly many of the people complaining about the 1% are the 1% themselves. According to the global rich list website if you earn above $33k a year you're in the top 1% globally by income.