5 ms·

In the US, unions had a good year, but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up. I wo

by hedora 3y ago

In the US, unions had a good year, but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up. I wouldn't be surprised if wages in the parts of the global population that's currently industrializing (parts of China and India) went up by way more than 43% though. One thing I've realized in recent years (thanks to silicon valley stock options): It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall, and maybe split it over two tax years. However, staying in that bracket is much harder; you need to have a windfall every year (so, be a successful VC) or be an executive. For that reason, I'd be interested to see income percentile statistics broken out over a 10 year period vs. annually. Some people summarize this effect with the acronym HENRY (High Earner, Not Rich Yet).

solardev 3y ago
> For that reason, I'd be interested to see income percentile statistics broken out over a 10 year period vs. annually. Some people summarize this effect with the acronym HENRY (High Earner, Not Rich Yet). Heh, most of the world would kill just to experience that for one year in their life.
mistrial9 3y ago
in his gracious majesty, our Lord the King has declared that both rich and poor alike, may sleep under bridges in the rain
digging 3y ago
> You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall, and maybe split it over two tax years. I realize we're on HN, but... calling that not hard feels out of touch. By definition it's extremely rare. I guess if you mean, an individual who's gotten into that rare position doesn't need to struggle particularly hard to see the fruits, the comment makes sense. Is that it?
- manwe150 3y ago
  It is only rare in a particular year. If a given person is assumed to only earn that for 1-2 years of a 30+ year career, then 10-20% of all people will be a top 1% earner, by rough math. Still rare, but not nearly as uncommon when looked at that way, if you take the hypothesis that it is commonly a one-time event.
  - digging 3y ago
    If your math adds up, (and it might but I'm not following it at all) -- 10% is still kind of rare. But yeah, not extremely so. For example, I consider myself pretty good at what I do, but I'd likely have to work very hard (for me) to get in that position. My circumstances don't put me anywhere near it.
  - oefrha 3y ago
    You do realize that the vast vast majority of the population never have an IPO-style windfall in a 30+ year career, don’t you? Are we witnessing some sort of fake out-of-touchness as humble brag here?
    - cableshaft 3y ago
      Yeah, I've been a software engineer for almost 20 years and I've never had an 'IPO-style windfall' (and don't see how that's going to happen in the next ten years either, unless I join a unicorn startup). Closest I've ever gotten to that is a $10k bonus one year. That definitely doesn't count. I've been an early employee at two startups also, they just didn't pan out. If I don't get that in one of the more well-paid professions, then I don't see how a teacher, or a janitor, or a waitress, etc, would ever get one.
      - digging 3y ago
        > If I don't get that in one of the more well-paid professions, then I don't see how a teacher, or a janitor, or a waitress, etc, would ever get one. Yeah I was entirely limiting the population discussed to SWE as well. Anybody who doesn't work in a core tech role has no chance whatsoever of such windfall, and that includes many people who do work in tech roles.
- Damogran6 3y ago
  'average' people might see it in a year with an inheritance. That was me two years ago. It was a finanically interesting time before the money got placed in more safe places than the checking account. By the same token, it's not hard for a person to be worth $1M+...steady long-term investment in a 401k over the course of your career can get you there. But it's _unavailable_ to the average person. They'll get taxed brutally if they touch it, and when managed correctly, will be divvyd out over the course of their retirement...so having 1M doesn't mean it's liquid.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    > 'average' people might see it in a year with an inheritance. inherited money is not taxable income to the recipient (in the US).
    - boringg 3y ago
      Actually the current rule is not taxable up to $12M but that changes with the whims of politicians and has changed quite frequently.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        No, it is not income (nor taxable) to the recipient regardless of amount. There is a tax on the estate of the decedent if the estate is larger than the exclusion amount.
        boringg 3y ago
        I think we are saying the same thing. Not taxable until it is over $12M. The only difference is that I didn't state that it wasn't taxed as income (which it shouldn't be) - it should be taxed as inheritance if it should be taxed at all.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        Its unusual to start an agreement response with “actually” but glad we cleared up my misunderstanding of that phrase. In the context of “an inheritance put me in the top 1% of income”, that’s obviously wrong, which was my point.
CPLX 3y ago
While interesting perhaps, your comment has literally nothing whatsoever to do with “the poorest people in society”.
abdullahkhalids 3y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if wages in the parts of the global population that's currently industrializing (parts of China and India) went up by way more than 43% though. "The average salary increase in India is likely to be 10% in 2023, up from an actual increase of 9.8% in 2022" [1] China's was in the range 3.7 percent, with salaries now a double of what they were a decade ago [2]. [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/mid-career/salaries-in-india-to-increase-by-an-average-of-10-in-2023-wtw-survey/articleshow/98358668.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/mid-career/salarie... [2] https://www.china-briefing.com/news/average-salaries-in-china-trends-and-implications-for-businesses/ https://www.china-briefing.com/news/average-salaries-in-chin...
- tuatoru 3y ago
  And that's in the formal economy in India, which employs a small fraction of those employed. I found this mini-documentary by Polymatter[1] interesting. It asserts that Indian firms with ten or more employees are subject to inspections by the Indian labour inspectorate and a bunch of other requirements. For entirely unrelated reasons most Indian firms find 9 to be the optimum number of employees. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvzn41Lv-O4&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvzn41Lv-O4&t=1s
- sharadov 3y ago
  And those are corporate jobs - sector like IT which are seeing rapid growth. I would like to see stats on factory job worker wage growth. No way are they seeing 40% growth! At the same time, YOY inflation in India is pretty high https://www.statista.com/statistics/271322/inflation-rate-in-india/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/271322/inflation-rate-in... India keeps the majority of the population afloat by big socialist spending - government handouts or there would be riots on the streets!
thfuran 3y ago
>but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up. I would need significantly more than a 43% raise for a single year for my wealth to increase by 43%.
spaceman_2020 3y ago
Here in India, the income disparity is becoming near comical. Mid level management at bloated unprofitable startups are making 40-50x the annual income of a maid. Condos in Delhi regularly sell for half a million dollars and higher. Meanwhile the government had to extend a free food scheme for 800M people by another 5 years and reduce the price of cooking fuel by 40% because the majority can’t afford to eat.
- boringg 3y ago
  That sounds like a potentially explosive social situation.
  - spaceman_2020 3y ago
    The government has kept that at bay so far with welfare schemes, religion, and nationalist propaganda. Don't know how sustainable that is. There is massive flight of talent already. Even as someone who makes good money, increasingly starting to feel that any semblance of a "good life" is unaffordable here. The discourse among my friends - all well-paid mid-career professionals - was that it's often cheaper to fly out to a country like Thailand and stay in a good resort, than to have a holiday in India.
    - JambalayaJim 3y ago
      I’m not following your two sentiments. With high income disparity, isn’t it extremely cheap for high earners to go on holiday? Where I assume the restaurant and hotel staff are paid poorly?
      - spaceman_2020 3y ago
        Incomes have risen so sharply for high earners that the supply for hotels, cabs, flights hasn’t kept pace with demand from this segment. Hence the unaffordability.
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
The report is that net worth (not income) of the wealthiest rose 42%. Wages would tend to be a fraction of wealth for those on middle incomes, say, who have been in work for more than a few years. They will have payed the majority of their wages for years into acquiring a place to live. In the Uk my house would now cost 8x my wage, a wage increase of 43% (for one year) would increase my net worth by about a sixteenth (~6%). Inflation is 10% (not 42%) and my employer capped wage maintenance at 8%. In October, Indian government wage maintenance was 4% (https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-raises-dearness-allowance-federal-government-employees-by-4-2023-10-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-raises-dearness-al...), do you think the private sector paid 10x more?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  >The report is that net worth (not income) of the wealthiest rose 42%. How much increase for the net worth minus stocks? Betting that any increase there was much more modest.
oefrha 3y ago
One has to be extremely out of touch to think wages could rise "by way more than 43%" in a year over a reasonably large region anywhere in the world, unless it's a dirt poor and sparsely populated agricultural region that literally struck gold that year. (Not counting hyperinflation, obviously.)
feoren 3y ago
> It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall, and maybe split it over two tax years. It's actually much easier than that: you just have to win the lottery. Easy! I mean, why doesn't everyone do that? Are they stupid?
- digging 3y ago
  I have an easier method. Stand under coconut trees at wealthy resorts until a coconut drops and kills you, that your heirs may sue for millions.
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    I think you'd need to be in the 10s of millions to register for top 1% in US. Mere "millions" might not be enough.
- pepa65 3y ago
  Haha, we know that plenty are trying...
bko 3y ago
> However, staying in that bracket is much harder; you need to have a windfall every year (so, be a successful VC) or be an executive. That's a good point. When people talk about "the 1%" or "the wealthiest families", they take the group that would qualify to be in that ranking today, and compare them with a different group from the past. But they're not the same people. You really need to do a longitudinal study. Take the same people and see how their wealth has grown. For instance, take the richest person from the 1980s Yoshiaki Tsutsumi dominated the richest list in the 1980s thanks to his real estate empire. However, times soon changed for Tsutsumi when real estate values tanked in the 1990s and he was caught up in an accounting scandal in the early 2000s. As of 2006, he dropped off the list of the wealthiest people in the world. Today he's worth 500 million. To make it that wealthy you generally have to take highly concentrated risks or be extremely leveraged. And this rarely lasts. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/business-executives/yoshiaki-tsutsumi-net-worth/ https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/busine...
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  You have to keep delivering extreme amounts of value for decades, which is not easy. Much simpler (relatively speaking) to make a few million and retire.
bjourne 3y ago
> In the US, unions had a good year, but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up. Do you have any statistics for that claim? In Sweden the largest union negotiated salary increases of 7.4% over two years (https://www.unionen.se/opinion/ja-till-avtal-nu-har-vi-ett-marke https://www.unionen.se/opinion/ja-till-avtal-nu-har-vi-ett-m...) which is far below the rate of inflation. In other words most workers are experiencing pay cuts, not increases. It would be surprising if the situation was completely different in the US.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of mostly unheard of? I'd challenge anyone to show a union winning even a >25% pay raise for their employees, and even those would be unicorns.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Any highly competitive market for workers (e.g. silicon valley software developers) is going to be much better for wages than a union, and even they won't generally make 43% more YOY.
sokoloff 3y ago
> It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. The 99th percentile threshold for household income in 2023 was "only" $591,550. A two-earner couple who sells a house beyond the exclusion amount (or is not eligible for the exclusion) would pretty readily brush into the 99th percentile for that year. (Many zero-earner couples would get there just from a house sale.) I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the "one year" 99th percentile folks were there just from a house sale and then someone else takes that spot in subsequent years.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Are primary residence sales, which typically involve moving to another residence, considered "income" for the purposes discussed here? If they are, based on what I'm reading elsewhere, this would only be relative to the capital gains on the sale price relative to the purchase price.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Capital gains (for primary houses, those gains above the exclusion amount) contribute towards AGI (adjusted gross income), the best single summary line of income on the return.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Sure, gains above both the exclusion amount and the purchase price. But even when added to other sources of income that's going to yield a 1% income for very few people.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        It will obviously be less than 1% of people overall. Among the “got into the top 1% once” group, I think it’s possibly a majority of those cases. Capital gains are roughly “net sales price minus basis”. Whatever the mortgage was has no bearing on it. (Someone who pays down their mortgage aggressively will not have more gains by that action, nor will someone who continually refi’s with cash-out have fewer gains.) Edit: parent edited their comment to remove a question about how gains are calculated and how that interacted with mortgage payoff.
bitcharmer 3y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if wages in the parts of the global population that's currently industrializing (parts of China and India) went up by way more than 43% though What an insanely out-of-touch take. HN-ers really are something else.
philistine 3y ago
You’re completely missing the forest for the trees. The richer are getting ever richer, with everyone else stagnating or regressing. Last time inegality was this high gave birth to the concept of a union, to the creation of communism, etc. If you’re a capitalist who despises progressive ideals, you should be wary right now. The very rich are so rich they’re grabbing all the gains with nothing for anyone else.
beebmam 3y ago
Income isn't wealth. Please don't conflate the two.
cbsmith 3y ago
> In the US, unions had a good year, but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up. There's a difference between wealth and income though. It's entirely possible 10% pay raises yield >43% increases in wealth, so long as most of the original wage wasn't able to go in to savings/investment.
PawgerZ 3y ago
> It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall This has got to be the hardest I've laughed at a Hacker News comment. Does dang put funny comments on the highlights section?

by hedora 3y ago

solardev 3y ago

> For that reason, I'd be interested to see income percentile statistics broken out over a 10 year period vs. annually. Some people summarize this effect with the acronym HENRY (High Earner, Not Rich Yet). Heh, most of the world would kill just to experience that for one year in their life.

mistrial9 3y ago

in his gracious majesty, our Lord the King has declared that both rich and poor alike, may sleep under bridges in the rain

digging 3y ago

> You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall, and maybe split it over two tax years. I realize we're on HN, but... calling that not hard feels out of touch. By definition it's extremely rare. I guess if you mean, an individual who's gotten into that rare position doesn't need to struggle particularly hard to see the fruits, the comment makes sense. Is that it?

manwe150 3y ago
It is only rare in a particular year. If a given person is assumed to only earn that for 1-2 years of a 30+ year career, then 10-20% of all people will be a top 1% earner, by rough math. Still rare, but not nearly as uncommon when looked at that way, if you take the hypothesis that it is commonly a one-time event.
- digging 3y ago
  If your math adds up, (and it might but I'm not following it at all) -- 10% is still kind of rare. But yeah, not extremely so. For example, I consider myself pretty good at what I do, but I'd likely have to work very hard (for me) to get in that position. My circumstances don't put me anywhere near it.
- oefrha 3y ago
  You do realize that the vast vast majority of the population never have an IPO-style windfall in a 30+ year career, don’t you? Are we witnessing some sort of fake out-of-touchness as humble brag here?
  - cableshaft 3y ago
    Yeah, I've been a software engineer for almost 20 years and I've never had an 'IPO-style windfall' (and don't see how that's going to happen in the next ten years either, unless I join a unicorn startup). Closest I've ever gotten to that is a $10k bonus one year. That definitely doesn't count. I've been an early employee at two startups also, they just didn't pan out. If I don't get that in one of the more well-paid professions, then I don't see how a teacher, or a janitor, or a waitress, etc, would ever get one.
    - digging 3y ago
      > If I don't get that in one of the more well-paid professions, then I don't see how a teacher, or a janitor, or a waitress, etc, would ever get one. Yeah I was entirely limiting the population discussed to SWE as well. Anybody who doesn't work in a core tech role has no chance whatsoever of such windfall, and that includes many people who do work in tech roles.
Damogran6 3y ago
'average' people might see it in a year with an inheritance. That was me two years ago. It was a finanically interesting time before the money got placed in more safe places than the checking account. By the same token, it's not hard for a person to be worth $1M+...steady long-term investment in a 401k over the course of your career can get you there. But it's _unavailable_ to the average person. They'll get taxed brutally if they touch it, and when managed correctly, will be divvyd out over the course of their retirement...so having 1M doesn't mean it's liquid.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > 'average' people might see it in a year with an inheritance. inherited money is not taxable income to the recipient (in the US).
  - boringg 3y ago
    Actually the current rule is not taxable up to $12M but that changes with the whims of politicians and has changed quite frequently.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      No, it is not income (nor taxable) to the recipient regardless of amount. There is a tax on the estate of the decedent if the estate is larger than the exclusion amount.
      - boringg 3y ago
        I think we are saying the same thing. Not taxable until it is over $12M. The only difference is that I didn't state that it wasn't taxed as income (which it shouldn't be) - it should be taxed as inheritance if it should be taxed at all.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        Its unusual to start an agreement response with “actually” but glad we cleared up my misunderstanding of that phrase. In the context of “an inheritance put me in the top 1% of income”, that’s obviously wrong, which was my point.

CPLX 3y ago

While interesting perhaps, your comment has literally nothing whatsoever to do with “the poorest people in society”.

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

> I wouldn't be surprised if wages in the parts of the global population that's currently industrializing (parts of China and India) went up by way more than 43% though. "The average salary increase in India is likely to be 10% in 2023, up from an actual increase of 9.8% in 2022" [1] China's was in the range 3.7 percent, with salaries now a double of what they were a decade ago [2]. [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/mid-career/salaries-in-india-to-increase-by-an-average-of-10-in-2023-wtw-survey/articleshow/98358668.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/mid-career/salarie... [2] https://www.china-briefing.com/news/average-salaries-in-china-trends-and-implications-for-businesses/ https://www.china-briefing.com/news/average-salaries-in-chin...

tuatoru 3y ago
And that's in the formal economy in India, which employs a small fraction of those employed. I found this mini-documentary by Polymatter[1] interesting. It asserts that Indian firms with ten or more employees are subject to inspections by the Indian labour inspectorate and a bunch of other requirements. For entirely unrelated reasons most Indian firms find 9 to be the optimum number of employees. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvzn41Lv-O4&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvzn41Lv-O4&t=1s
sharadov 3y ago
And those are corporate jobs - sector like IT which are seeing rapid growth. I would like to see stats on factory job worker wage growth. No way are they seeing 40% growth! At the same time, YOY inflation in India is pretty high https://www.statista.com/statistics/271322/inflation-rate-in-india/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/271322/inflation-rate-in... India keeps the majority of the population afloat by big socialist spending - government handouts or there would be riots on the streets!

thfuran 3y ago

>but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up. I would need significantly more than a 43% raise for a single year for my wealth to increase by 43%.

spaceman_2020 3y ago

Here in India, the income disparity is becoming near comical. Mid level management at bloated unprofitable startups are making 40-50x the annual income of a maid. Condos in Delhi regularly sell for half a million dollars and higher. Meanwhile the government had to extend a free food scheme for 800M people by another 5 years and reduce the price of cooking fuel by 40% because the majority can’t afford to eat.

boringg 3y ago
That sounds like a potentially explosive social situation.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  The government has kept that at bay so far with welfare schemes, religion, and nationalist propaganda. Don't know how sustainable that is. There is massive flight of talent already. Even as someone who makes good money, increasingly starting to feel that any semblance of a "good life" is unaffordable here. The discourse among my friends - all well-paid mid-career professionals - was that it's often cheaper to fly out to a country like Thailand and stay in a good resort, than to have a holiday in India.
  - JambalayaJim 3y ago
    I’m not following your two sentiments. With high income disparity, isn’t it extremely cheap for high earners to go on holiday? Where I assume the restaurant and hotel staff are paid poorly?
    - spaceman_2020 3y ago
      Incomes have risen so sharply for high earners that the supply for hotels, cabs, flights hasn’t kept pace with demand from this segment. Hence the unaffordability.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

The report is that net worth (not income) of the wealthiest rose 42%. Wages would tend to be a fraction of wealth for those on middle incomes, say, who have been in work for more than a few years. They will have payed the majority of their wages for years into acquiring a place to live. In the Uk my house would now cost 8x my wage, a wage increase of 43% (for one year) would increase my net worth by about a sixteenth (~6%). Inflation is 10% (not 42%) and my employer capped wage maintenance at 8%. In October, Indian government wage maintenance was 4% (https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-raises-dearness-allowance-federal-government-employees-by-4-2023-10-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-raises-dearness-al...), do you think the private sector paid 10x more?

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
>The report is that net worth (not income) of the wealthiest rose 42%. How much increase for the net worth minus stocks? Betting that any increase there was much more modest.

oefrha 3y ago

One has to be extremely out of touch to think wages could rise "by way more than 43%" in a year over a reasonably large region anywhere in the world, unless it's a dirt poor and sparsely populated agricultural region that literally struck gold that year. (Not counting hyperinflation, obviously.)

feoren 3y ago

> It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall, and maybe split it over two tax years. It's actually much easier than that: you just have to win the lottery. Easy! I mean, why doesn't everyone do that? Are they stupid?

digging 3y ago
I have an easier method. Stand under coconut trees at wealthy resorts until a coconut drops and kills you, that your heirs may sue for millions.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  I think you'd need to be in the 10s of millions to register for top 1% in US. Mere "millions" might not be enough.
pepa65 3y ago
Haha, we know that plenty are trying...

bko 3y ago

> However, staying in that bracket is much harder; you need to have a windfall every year (so, be a successful VC) or be an executive. That's a good point. When people talk about "the 1%" or "the wealthiest families", they take the group that would qualify to be in that ranking today, and compare them with a different group from the past. But they're not the same people. You really need to do a longitudinal study. Take the same people and see how their wealth has grown. For instance, take the richest person from the 1980s Yoshiaki Tsutsumi dominated the richest list in the 1980s thanks to his real estate empire. However, times soon changed for Tsutsumi when real estate values tanked in the 1990s and he was caught up in an accounting scandal in the early 2000s. As of 2006, he dropped off the list of the wealthiest people in the world. Today he's worth 500 million. To make it that wealthy you generally have to take highly concentrated risks or be extremely leveraged. And this rarely lasts. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/business-executives/yoshiaki-tsutsumi-net-worth/ https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/busine...

robertlagrant 3y ago
You have to keep delivering extreme amounts of value for decades, which is not easy. Much simpler (relatively speaking) to make a few million and retire.

bjourne 3y ago

> In the US, unions had a good year, but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up. Do you have any statistics for that claim? In Sweden the largest union negotiated salary increases of 7.4% over two years (https://www.unionen.se/opinion/ja-till-avtal-nu-har-vi-ett-marke https://www.unionen.se/opinion/ja-till-avtal-nu-har-vi-ett-m...) which is far below the rate of inflation. In other words most workers are experiencing pay cuts, not increases. It would be surprising if the situation was completely different in the US.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of mostly unheard of? I'd challenge anyone to show a union winning even a >25% pay raise for their employees, and even those would be unicorns.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Any highly competitive market for workers (e.g. silicon valley software developers) is going to be much better for wages than a union, and even they won't generally make 43% more YOY.

sokoloff 3y ago

> It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. The 99th percentile threshold for household income in 2023 was "only" $591,550. A two-earner couple who sells a house beyond the exclusion amount (or is not eligible for the exclusion) would pretty readily brush into the 99th percentile for that year. (Many zero-earner couples would get there just from a house sale.) I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the "one year" 99th percentile folks were there just from a house sale and then someone else takes that spot in subsequent years.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Are primary residence sales, which typically involve moving to another residence, considered "income" for the purposes discussed here? If they are, based on what I'm reading elsewhere, this would only be relative to the capital gains on the sale price relative to the purchase price.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Capital gains (for primary houses, those gains above the exclusion amount) contribute towards AGI (adjusted gross income), the best single summary line of income on the return.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Sure, gains above both the exclusion amount and the purchase price. But even when added to other sources of income that's going to yield a 1% income for very few people.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      It will obviously be less than 1% of people overall. Among the “got into the top 1% once” group, I think it’s possibly a majority of those cases. Capital gains are roughly “net sales price minus basis”. Whatever the mortgage was has no bearing on it. (Someone who pays down their mortgage aggressively will not have more gains by that action, nor will someone who continually refi’s with cash-out have fewer gains.) Edit: parent edited their comment to remove a question about how gains are calculated and how that interacted with mortgage payoff.

bitcharmer 3y ago

> I wouldn't be surprised if wages in the parts of the global population that's currently industrializing (parts of China and India) went up by way more than 43% though What an insanely out-of-touch take. HN-ers really are something else.

philistine 3y ago

You’re completely missing the forest for the trees. The richer are getting ever richer, with everyone else stagnating or regressing. Last time inegality was this high gave birth to the concept of a union, to the creation of communism, etc. If you’re a capitalist who despises progressive ideals, you should be wary right now. The very rich are so rich they’re grabbing all the gains with nothing for anyone else.

beebmam 3y ago

Income isn't wealth. Please don't conflate the two.

cbsmith 3y ago

> In the US, unions had a good year, but 43% pay raises in union contracts were mostly unheard of, so that part of the population probably isn't keeping up. There's a difference between wealth and income though. It's entirely possible 10% pay raises yield >43% increases in wealth, so long as most of the original wage wasn't able to go in to savings/investment.

PawgerZ 3y ago

> It's not that hard to get into a >99% income bracket for a year or two. You basically just need to participate in an IPO-style windfall This has got to be the hardest I've laughed at a Hacker News comment. Does dang put funny comments on the highlights section?