5 ms·

If I had to guess, I agree most people probably continue to earn high wages once at that level. But I don't think it's a question of how often people decline h

by nend 5y ago

If I had to guess, I agree most people probably continue to earn high wages once at that level. But I don't think it's a question of how often people decline high wages to take a lower paying job (although this obviously happens as well). It's whether they can continuously be offered high wages as their career continues.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
At least part of that is probably a function of how hard the work is on one’s body. A hard labor worker with a high income in 30s/40s is presumably more likely to lose that income in 50s/60s/70s than a non hard labor worker (e.g. office job).
- otnihoithiu 5y ago
  Highly paid, older office workers are first in line when layoffs happen. Those people then face age discrimination trying to get new positions. Can really derail your earnings.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Yes, there is dramatically increase probability of obsolescence for anyone after 50, but from my experience, the office workers tend to have a much better network to fall back on. Either way, one should definitely be investing in passive income sources for their 50s and up.
brk 5y ago
Good point. In my experience, the higher earning potential can be maintained, though overall salary growth is lower, as you start to hit a bit of a theoretical earnings ceiling. Though, that is generally of limited consequence when you're at those levels. Another issue not addressed is lack of employment flexibility. If you are in the top 5% of earners, by extension you are likely limited to the top 5% of all available positions. Whereas someone with a more "mainstream" income can likely switch employers or industries, or even locations, with less impact (or maybe even positive impact, moving into a region with a better pay:cost-of-living ratio).
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  If you are in the top 5% of earners, you have the ability to save enough money so you can switch to whatever level of employment you want. Someone with a more "mainstream" income barely or never saves enough money to have the kind of security to just try out other employers or fields or regions. I am willing to bet a top 5% earner would be able to land a top quintile job just by asking people in their network.
  - prennert 5y ago
    That was exactly my motivation of asking this question. If you have a substantial disposable income available year-on-year, you have the option to decide whether to just pay-off your mortgage and then work in something of high personal value, but potentially with lower pay closer to the median. This will still leave you with considerable disposable income compared to your median-income peers at that point. Alternatively, so I thought, high earners could continue to optimize for high pay to afford more luxuries. My expectation was then that a considerable amount of high-earners would choose to trade income with work they value personally. Triggering social mobility by allowing someone else to take their place. Reading these threads, I am thinking now that maybe this is not so much relevant. If it is true, as others have suggested, that high-earners have more chances to get into positions that are well paid almost by default, than the choice for high earners is not between high income or valuable work. They can do both, because even when they start working for an NGO or take government position, their income would be expected to be high.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    > If you are in the top 5% of earners, you have the ability to save enough money so you can switch to whatever level of employment you want. I’m skeptical. My peers and I are in the top 1% of earners. We cannot save enough money to just opt out of our 1% incomes. Real estate is too expensive. (Bay Area) I suspect many people in the top 5% are wage slaves as much as anyone else and have very little available in terms of viable options to continue the same lifestyle. I’m in the top 1% but I still live in a 400sqft inlaw unit. Real estate is very expensive where you get those high incomes. I suspect many people in the top 5% of earners aren’t my age though (30) and have generational wealth going on if not wealth from buying their home a long time ago when things were cheaper.

by nend 5y ago

lotsofpulp 5y ago

At least part of that is probably a function of how hard the work is on one’s body. A hard labor worker with a high income in 30s/40s is presumably more likely to lose that income in 50s/60s/70s than a non hard labor worker (e.g. office job).

otnihoithiu 5y ago
Highly paid, older office workers are first in line when layoffs happen. Those people then face age discrimination trying to get new positions. Can really derail your earnings.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Yes, there is dramatically increase probability of obsolescence for anyone after 50, but from my experience, the office workers tend to have a much better network to fall back on. Either way, one should definitely be investing in passive income sources for their 50s and up.

brk 5y ago

Good point. In my experience, the higher earning potential can be maintained, though overall salary growth is lower, as you start to hit a bit of a theoretical earnings ceiling. Though, that is generally of limited consequence when you're at those levels. Another issue not addressed is lack of employment flexibility. If you are in the top 5% of earners, by extension you are likely limited to the top 5% of all available positions. Whereas someone with a more "mainstream" income can likely switch employers or industries, or even locations, with less impact (or maybe even positive impact, moving into a region with a better pay:cost-of-living ratio).

lotsofpulp 5y ago
If you are in the top 5% of earners, you have the ability to save enough money so you can switch to whatever level of employment you want. Someone with a more "mainstream" income barely or never saves enough money to have the kind of security to just try out other employers or fields or regions. I am willing to bet a top 5% earner would be able to land a top quintile job just by asking people in their network.
- prennert 5y ago
  That was exactly my motivation of asking this question. If you have a substantial disposable income available year-on-year, you have the option to decide whether to just pay-off your mortgage and then work in something of high personal value, but potentially with lower pay closer to the median. This will still leave you with considerable disposable income compared to your median-income peers at that point. Alternatively, so I thought, high earners could continue to optimize for high pay to afford more luxuries. My expectation was then that a considerable amount of high-earners would choose to trade income with work they value personally. Triggering social mobility by allowing someone else to take their place. Reading these threads, I am thinking now that maybe this is not so much relevant. If it is true, as others have suggested, that high-earners have more chances to get into positions that are well paid almost by default, than the choice for high earners is not between high income or valuable work. They can do both, because even when they start working for an NGO or take government position, their income would be expected to be high.
- bradlys 5y ago
  > If you are in the top 5% of earners, you have the ability to save enough money so you can switch to whatever level of employment you want. I’m skeptical. My peers and I are in the top 1% of earners. We cannot save enough money to just opt out of our 1% incomes. Real estate is too expensive. (Bay Area) I suspect many people in the top 5% are wage slaves as much as anyone else and have very little available in terms of viable options to continue the same lifestyle. I’m in the top 1% but I still live in a 400sqft inlaw unit. Real estate is very expensive where you get those high incomes. I suspect many people in the top 5% of earners aren’t my age though (30) and have generational wealth going on if not wealth from buying their home a long time ago when things were cheaper.