5 ms·

39% of Americans either believe they are already among the top 1% or believe that they one day will be And how many people will actually be in the top 1% of ea

by blfr 12y ago

39% of Americans either believe they are already among the top 1% or believe that they one day will be And how many people will actually be in the top 1% of earners at least once? EDIT: 12% http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-to-riches-to-rags.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-t... What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution Not that far off.

ghouse 12y ago
There is about a 10x difference between the top 5% and top 1%. So, that's sorta far off. And then again a 20x difference between the top 1% and top 0.1%
- blfr 12y ago
  Yeah but few people when asked think like that. It's just a type of "rich".
  - sp332 12y ago
    To consider yourself in the top 1%, you just have to be richer than 99 other people you know. Humans are not good at avoiding sampling bias.
    - Taek 12y ago
      That's not true. Most of my friends and aquaintences are software engineers or masters+ in some other STEM field. (Or are students of a similar caliber). The people you know aren't a good random sample. The top 1% tend to have more friends who are also top 1%.
Retric 12y ago
Lots of things can temporarily boost your income by consolidating several years’ income into one big payment. Sell a flower shop you built up over 40 years for 150k and you are clearly not doing that well. Gamboling can be a net loss over someone’s lifetime and give them one very good year. Even just swapping jobs and seeing getting a few months of saved vacation in one big chunk. The point is for the 88% of Americans never see the top 1% even after their biggest windfall that's a vast gap. And nothing says 1% is defined by their annual tax returns lifetime earnings adjusted for age are a much better link to someones finances than what they made last year. PS: Sure, in theory Bill Gates was not in the top 1% while at Harvard, but his nominal income had little to do with his status. Don't forget his Mother was friends with the CEO of IBM that's serious connections.
- warfangle 12y ago
  Wait, where can you save vacation and receive that time as paid as one big chunk?
  - gkop 12y ago
    California state law.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Illinois state law as well.
    - whybroke 12y ago
      And non-competition clauses are unenforceable in California. Yet other states wonder why no mater how many tax incentive they give business, silicon valley remains stubbornly in CA.
    - warfangle 12y ago
      Huh. That's pretty awesome.
netrus 12y ago
The only way I can explain myself these numbers is heritage: Many people will at some point in their life have a heritage above typical yearly salaries. That information doesn't help much. We should find a mid-way between income, wealth and earning potential. Maybe "currently-expected-lifetime-earnings"?
ryandrake 12y ago
Those figures include people who had a lucky year. I'd like to see data showing what percentage of people who start out in the bottom 99%, and end up at any point in their lives spending at least 10 consecutive years (or until their death) in the top 1%. When we talk about "the 1%" we are not talking about that one hit wonder salesman or small business owner who cashes out and technically has >$1M income in one particular year. We are talking about year-after-year sustained income. EDIT: There's no question that there are problems with the phrase "among the top 1% of earners". It's not well defined. I think, though, it's safe to say that when the Average American talks about "the 1%" as a class, he's not talking about the person who had a single good year and went on to have a normal income for the rest of his life. He's talking about the class of people whose income is high and sustained. When the average person says, "I'll be among the top 1% of earners" he's imagining himself as attaining continuing membership in an economic class, not predicting a single-year windfall.

by blfr 12y ago

ghouse 12y ago

There is about a 10x difference between the top 5% and top 1%. So, that's sorta far off. And then again a 20x difference between the top 1% and top 0.1%

blfr 12y ago
Yeah but few people when asked think like that. It's just a type of "rich".
- sp332 12y ago
  To consider yourself in the top 1%, you just have to be richer than 99 other people you know. Humans are not good at avoiding sampling bias.
  - Taek 12y ago
    That's not true. Most of my friends and aquaintences are software engineers or masters+ in some other STEM field. (Or are students of a similar caliber). The people you know aren't a good random sample. The top 1% tend to have more friends who are also top 1%.

Retric 12y ago

Lots of things can temporarily boost your income by consolidating several years’ income into one big payment. Sell a flower shop you built up over 40 years for 150k and you are clearly not doing that well. Gamboling can be a net loss over someone’s lifetime and give them one very good year. Even just swapping jobs and seeing getting a few months of saved vacation in one big chunk. The point is for the 88% of Americans never see the top 1% even after their biggest windfall that's a vast gap. And nothing says 1% is defined by their annual tax returns lifetime earnings adjusted for age are a much better link to someones finances than what they made last year. PS: Sure, in theory Bill Gates was not in the top 1% while at Harvard, but his nominal income had little to do with his status. Don't forget his Mother was friends with the CEO of IBM that's serious connections.

warfangle 12y ago
Wait, where can you save vacation and receive that time as paid as one big chunk?
- gkop 12y ago
  California state law.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Illinois state law as well.
  - whybroke 12y ago
    And non-competition clauses are unenforceable in California. Yet other states wonder why no mater how many tax incentive they give business, silicon valley remains stubbornly in CA.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    Huh. That's pretty awesome.

netrus 12y ago

The only way I can explain myself these numbers is heritage: Many people will at some point in their life have a heritage above typical yearly salaries. That information doesn't help much. We should find a mid-way between income, wealth and earning potential. Maybe "currently-expected-lifetime-earnings"?

ryandrake 12y ago

Those figures include people who had a lucky year. I'd like to see data showing what percentage of people who start out in the bottom 99%, and end up at any point in their lives spending at least 10 consecutive years (or until their death) in the top 1%. When we talk about "the 1%" we are not talking about that one hit wonder salesman or small business owner who cashes out and technically has >$1M income in one particular year. We are talking about year-after-year sustained income. EDIT: There's no question that there are problems with the phrase "among the top 1% of earners". It's not well defined. I think, though, it's safe to say that when the Average American talks about "the 1%" as a class, he's not talking about the person who had a single good year and went on to have a normal income for the rest of his life. He's talking about the class of people whose income is high and sustained. When the average person says, "I'll be among the top 1% of earners" he's imagining himself as attaining continuing membership in an economic class, not predicting a single-year windfall.