3 ms·

Side note: we, here on HN, all likely have more money than 99% of all humans on this planet [0] (the link is about income; wealth is even more unequally distrib

by yboris 6y ago

Side note: we, here on HN, all likely have more money than 99% of all humans on this planet [0] (the link is about income; wealth is even more unequally distributed). Earning more than $60k/year puts you in the 1% already. [1] [0] https://income-inequality.info/ https://income-inequality.info/ [1] https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i

perl4ever 6y ago
Some people on HN in fact have salaries under $60K. Not everyone here is an American or works in the private sector, either. I would be fairly surprised if $60K is top 1%, even if you have the entire world population in the denominator. But when I checked your link, it's not using the entire population for the denominator, (which is correct, IMO) so I don't think it's even close. In the US, there are about 110M fulltime wage earners, (out of 330M population) with median being ~$50K and top quartile ~$80K. My very rough estimate based on that might be 45M people >$60K. That is a lot more than 110/330 * 1% * 7.8B = 26M before adding in Europe (lower wages but twice the population) or anywhere else. Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
- yboris 6y ago
  Thanks for specifying the numbers and the underlying assumptions! Median in the US is not clear to me - I saw a figure of 60K and 35K within 2 minutes of searching. I think wage earning gets divided across family size, so those 45M people in your calculation, after dividing by family size, would have a much smaller income.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    That sounds like the claim is "if the income per capita within your household is > $60K, then your household is in the top 1% of all households in income per capita". I think the difference between this convoluted statement and normal measures of inequality could be approximately translated to "most people making > $60K have dependents". It seems like a bad way to talk about inequality, because what goal would it imply to reduce inequality? Prevent people from having dependents, or prevent them from not having dependents?
    - yboris 6y ago
      I think income is a proxy for something like "financial freedom" (which is presumably the eventual goal for why we want higher incomes). Having an income of $60k while having a dependent is very different than when not having a dependent. I seems correct to say that without a dependent, you're in the top 1% of the world's wage earners (with respect to your financial freedom); while if you have a dependent, your income is no longer fully yours - and you are no longer in the top 1% of the world's wage earners.

by yboris 6y ago

perl4ever 6y ago

Some people on HN in fact have salaries under $60K. Not everyone here is an American or works in the private sector, either. I would be fairly surprised if $60K is top 1%, even if you have the entire world population in the denominator. But when I checked your link, it's not using the entire population for the denominator, (which is correct, IMO) so I don't think it's even close. In the US, there are about 110M fulltime wage earners, (out of 330M population) with median being ~$50K and top quartile ~$80K. My very rough estimate based on that might be 45M people >$60K. That is a lot more than 110/330 * 1% * 7.8B = 26M before adding in Europe (lower wages but twice the population) or anywhere else. Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

yboris 6y ago
Thanks for specifying the numbers and the underlying assumptions! Median in the US is not clear to me - I saw a figure of 60K and 35K within 2 minutes of searching. I think wage earning gets divided across family size, so those 45M people in your calculation, after dividing by family size, would have a much smaller income.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  That sounds like the claim is "if the income per capita within your household is > $60K, then your household is in the top 1% of all households in income per capita". I think the difference between this convoluted statement and normal measures of inequality could be approximately translated to "most people making > $60K have dependents". It seems like a bad way to talk about inequality, because what goal would it imply to reduce inequality? Prevent people from having dependents, or prevent them from not having dependents?
  - yboris 6y ago
    I think income is a proxy for something like "financial freedom" (which is presumably the eventual goal for why we want higher incomes). Having an income of $60k while having a dependent is very different than when not having a dependent. I seems correct to say that without a dependent, you're in the top 1% of the world's wage earners (with respect to your financial freedom); while if you have a dependent, your income is no longer fully yours - and you are no longer in the top 1% of the world's wage earners.