5 ms·

Only 8% of people in the United States make more than $100k: https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/ https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/ Don't know if I'd ca

Only 8% of people in the United States make more than $100k: https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/ https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/ Don't know if I'd call it easy if it's something only 8 out of 100 people do. It also depends on the area. $100k in SF is a lot different than $100k in the mid-west.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> Only 8% of people in the United States make more than $100k How does the percentage change when you look at people with full-time jobs? With full-time professional jobs? Who are actively trying to optimise their income instead of for example prioritising family? I'd guess it becomes much larger very quickly.
- redelbee 5y ago
  According to the 2020 census data linked below the percentage increases to around 24% for individuals who worked full time all year. I don’t think there is any easy way to find the more specific groups you mentioned. That’s not a large enough increase to consider making six figures as easy as “prioritizing” it or whatever you’re proposing. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/pinc-01/2021/pinc01_2_1_1.xlsx https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/pinc-01/... In any case what you’re proposing is selection bias. No one should be surprised that people who work full time are more likely to make six figures than those who don’t. And yes, if you cherry pick a group of “professionals” who receive larger salaries of course the percentage will increase. And it’s back to survivorship bias for the “prioritization” examples you mentioned. Unless you happen to have a random sample of people who don’t make six figures but would prefer to.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    I think you've just proved yourself that making 100k is extremely achievable in the US (1/4) for someone who even just bothers to turn up full-time.
    - saalweachter 5y ago
      Keep in mind the "underemployment rate" -- the people who want to be working more but can't find a job that will let them -- is something like 12%. Being willing to show up full time is necessary but not sufficient.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      When 3 out 4 people "fail" at something, I'm not sure that calling it "extremely achievable" is really a particularly suitable description.
      - shukantpal 5y ago
        Ahem, your statement assumes people even try - most do not. Especially given the "follow your passion" advice Americans are following nowadays.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        The GP was using a quote from the GGP: > According to the 2020 census data linked below the percentage increases to around 24% for individuals who worked full time all year. It said and implied nothing about people trying or not. GP attempted to cast this as "1/4 of people succeed, so it's easily achieveable"
        shukantpal 5y ago
        It said and implied nothing about failing either. Also, if I look at the people around myself and see that 1 / 4 are able to do something, it would probably be easy. So it’s the GPs own self awareness combined with the stat.
rpmisms 5y ago
I definitely have survivorship bias, but I also know many people who've done similar things in different fields. I think knowing other people who make plenty of money helps, but often only by way of example. Knowing it's possible means you'll work harder.
- pm90 5y ago
  “What I’ve seen contradicts measured statistics across the country” is not a convincing argument. Most users of HN probably live in a bubble; important to look at hard data from reliable sources rather than personal experiences.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > “What I’ve seen contradicts measured statistics across the country” is not a convincing argument. You are not understanding the other possibilities here. The other possibility is that yes, it is true that it is not that hard to make it to this level of success, but the stats are still true, and it is simply that people don't do this, for other reasons. There are a multitude of reasons, as for why someone might not join lucrative fields, even if it isn't that hard to do so. For example, maybe they simply aren't aware of it, or they incorrectly think it would be difficult. Or maybe there a social reasons why people don't do it. Or maybe, in order to achieve that level of success they would have to move, and I know that lots of people don't want to do move.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      A lot of people simply don't want to be HTPL maintenance, for example. It pays very well, but it's hard. That's not acceptable to a lot of folks right now. My sister-in-law's fiancé is doing it as a journeyman, and he's making very close to what I do as a mid-level SWE.
      - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
        > My sister-in-law's fiancé is doing it as a journeyman, and he's making very close to what I do as a mid-level SWE This is not a very useful statement without a ballpark figure. Mid level SWE salaries range from <100k to >300k depending on the company.
randmeerkat 5y ago
This calculator is from 2016. I’m curious what results this would give after adjusting for inflation and current salary jumps.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

chrisseaton 5y ago

> Only 8% of people in the United States make more than $100k How does the percentage change when you look at people with full-time jobs? With full-time professional jobs? Who are actively trying to optimise their income instead of for example prioritising family? I'd guess it becomes much larger very quickly.

redelbee 5y ago
According to the 2020 census data linked below the percentage increases to around 24% for individuals who worked full time all year. I don’t think there is any easy way to find the more specific groups you mentioned. That’s not a large enough increase to consider making six figures as easy as “prioritizing” it or whatever you’re proposing. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/pinc-01/2021/pinc01_2_1_1.xlsx https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/pinc-01/... In any case what you’re proposing is selection bias. No one should be surprised that people who work full time are more likely to make six figures than those who don’t. And yes, if you cherry pick a group of “professionals” who receive larger salaries of course the percentage will increase. And it’s back to survivorship bias for the “prioritization” examples you mentioned. Unless you happen to have a random sample of people who don’t make six figures but would prefer to.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I think you've just proved yourself that making 100k is extremely achievable in the US (1/4) for someone who even just bothers to turn up full-time.
  - saalweachter 5y ago
    Keep in mind the "underemployment rate" -- the people who want to be working more but can't find a job that will let them -- is something like 12%. Being willing to show up full time is necessary but not sufficient.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    When 3 out 4 people "fail" at something, I'm not sure that calling it "extremely achievable" is really a particularly suitable description.
    - shukantpal 5y ago
      Ahem, your statement assumes people even try - most do not. Especially given the "follow your passion" advice Americans are following nowadays.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        The GP was using a quote from the GGP: > According to the 2020 census data linked below the percentage increases to around 24% for individuals who worked full time all year. It said and implied nothing about people trying or not. GP attempted to cast this as "1/4 of people succeed, so it's easily achieveable"
        shukantpal 5y ago
        It said and implied nothing about failing either. Also, if I look at the people around myself and see that 1 / 4 are able to do something, it would probably be easy. So it’s the GPs own self awareness combined with the stat.

rpmisms 5y ago

I definitely have survivorship bias, but I also know many people who've done similar things in different fields. I think knowing other people who make plenty of money helps, but often only by way of example. Knowing it's possible means you'll work harder.

pm90 5y ago
“What I’ve seen contradicts measured statistics across the country” is not a convincing argument. Most users of HN probably live in a bubble; important to look at hard data from reliable sources rather than personal experiences.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > “What I’ve seen contradicts measured statistics across the country” is not a convincing argument. You are not understanding the other possibilities here. The other possibility is that yes, it is true that it is not that hard to make it to this level of success, but the stats are still true, and it is simply that people don't do this, for other reasons. There are a multitude of reasons, as for why someone might not join lucrative fields, even if it isn't that hard to do so. For example, maybe they simply aren't aware of it, or they incorrectly think it would be difficult. Or maybe there a social reasons why people don't do it. Or maybe, in order to achieve that level of success they would have to move, and I know that lots of people don't want to do move.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    A lot of people simply don't want to be HTPL maintenance, for example. It pays very well, but it's hard. That's not acceptable to a lot of folks right now. My sister-in-law's fiancé is doing it as a journeyman, and he's making very close to what I do as a mid-level SWE.
    - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
      > My sister-in-law's fiancé is doing it as a journeyman, and he's making very close to what I do as a mid-level SWE This is not a very useful statement without a ballpark figure. Mid level SWE salaries range from <100k to >300k depending on the company.

randmeerkat 5y ago

This calculator is from 2016. I’m curious what results this would give after adjusting for inflation and current salary jumps.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]