6 ms·

It's still your second largest group. At the time I wrote the above, it was 70% of your respondents. Stick a >$300k on there, and I wouldn't be surprised if a

It's still your second largest group. At the time I wrote the above, it was 70% of your respondents. Stick a >$300k on there, and I wouldn't be surprised if a big slice of that group shifts right over to it. Incidentally, in response to _delirium, we really need to stop thinking of $200k as "a lot of money". That's an achievable wage for a good developer. Describing it in terms normally reserved for fantasy rather than reality is not particularly helpful.

_delirium 13y ago
Why do we "need" to start doing something that's false? $200k+ is a lot of money. It's a top-5% household income in the U.S. (and that's including dual-earning households). You can live a very good life just about everywhere with it. I live a very good life in an expensive city on less! Heck, it's a very good income even if you limit yourself only to technologists in the Valley, a rather rarified social milieu: most Googlers make less. Sure, you can make more than that, but in a general discussion about freelancing, it's not all that interesting to break down fine gradations of the upper-middle-class, which can be usefully bundled into the category of "people who are very successful at consulting/freelancing". Heck, I'd probably put the cutoff at $150k+ if I were designing a poll, since above that threshold you are no longer trying to make it as a full-time consultant who can support a good lifestyle. I do think it could be interesting to break out the truly wealthy, adding a separate category for $1m+. But there isn't really any interesting difference between $200k and $300k.
- walshemj 13y ago
  its 50% and long term in terms of retirement and savings an extra 100k makes a hell of a difference.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Sure, it's more money, but it's more or less the same social class and economic position. It's enough to be teetering on the top end of upper-middle-class (compared to engineers making $100k-$150k salaries), but not enough to be truly wealthy, like people who cash out large IPO shares, or consultants/lawyers/etc. raking in 7 figures.
    - walshemj 13y ago
      Class is not the same as how rich you are :-) there are plenty of poor DAR WASPs who will look down on these immigrant billionaires (some of whom are sons of Abraham nudge nudge) Bill G would be seen as "one of us" Larry Ellison much less's so.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- phamilton 13y ago
  The difference between $150k and $200k is often home ownership. Personally that's a pretty big difference to me. I'd like to see numbers about consultants who can support a family of 4 and a mortgage on the peninsula.
  - siddboots 13y ago
    The point is that if you earn enough to live comfortably, buy land, and support three dependents, you are making a lot of money by any standard.
csomar 13y ago
I did. Two hours later, only one person upvoted it and around 20 person upvoted the $200k+.

_delirium 13y ago

Why do we "need" to start doing something that's false? $200k+ is a lot of money. It's a top-5% household income in the U.S. (and that's including dual-earning households). You can live a very good life just about everywhere with it. I live a very good life in an expensive city on less! Heck, it's a very good income even if you limit yourself only to technologists in the Valley, a rather rarified social milieu: most Googlers make less. Sure, you can make more than that, but in a general discussion about freelancing, it's not all that interesting to break down fine gradations of the upper-middle-class, which can be usefully bundled into the category of "people who are very successful at consulting/freelancing". Heck, I'd probably put the cutoff at $150k+ if I were designing a poll, since above that threshold you are no longer trying to make it as a full-time consultant who can support a good lifestyle. I do think it could be interesting to break out the truly wealthy, adding a separate category for $1m+. But there isn't really any interesting difference between $200k and $300k.

walshemj 13y ago
its 50% and long term in terms of retirement and savings an extra 100k makes a hell of a difference.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Sure, it's more money, but it's more or less the same social class and economic position. It's enough to be teetering on the top end of upper-middle-class (compared to engineers making $100k-$150k salaries), but not enough to be truly wealthy, like people who cash out large IPO shares, or consultants/lawyers/etc. raking in 7 figures.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Class is not the same as how rich you are :-) there are plenty of poor DAR WASPs who will look down on these immigrant billionaires (some of whom are sons of Abraham nudge nudge) Bill G would be seen as "one of us" Larry Ellison much less's so.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
phamilton 13y ago
The difference between $150k and $200k is often home ownership. Personally that's a pretty big difference to me. I'd like to see numbers about consultants who can support a family of 4 and a mortgage on the peninsula.
- siddboots 13y ago
  The point is that if you earn enough to live comfortably, buy land, and support three dependents, you are making a lot of money by any standard.

csomar 13y ago

I did. Two hours later, only one person upvoted it and around 20 person upvoted the $200k+.