Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#31

Post by raesene »

gaius wrote: post #18
moultano wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

250k of household income puts you at the 98.3 percentile, so any two married valley engineers probably qualify, and they probably can't afford a house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...

Same situation here in the UK - you become one of the hated "rich" at about GBP 37k where income tax goes up to 40%. Nowhere in the Home Counties is that enough to get a mortgage even on a 1-bedroom flat, let alone a house. A super-tax of 50% kicks in at GBP 150k - but an ordinary family home costs around GBP 500k. As normal in politics, the middle classes are being raped for the benefit of those at the top and at th…

Although those numbers only really apply to London. Average property prices are much lower elsewhere. Average detached house in the north of England is £249,382, Wales is £220,330... (source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_pric...)

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#32

Post by [deleted] »

qq66 wrote: post #25
pg wrote: post #3

This is written more like a speech by a politician than as an attempt at analysis. The type of economic inequality that successful startups yield, and which accounts for a lot of the entries in the Forbes 400, is described merely as a theory cherished by the rich, and dismissed with evidence it would be a compliment to call anecdotal. And while there's a lot of talk about how the rich own the government, he doesn't e…

The Forbes 400 is mostly entrepreneurs but the "Forbes 40,000" is mostly financiers, only a small fraction of whom create net positive value.

[deleted]

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#33

Post by marknadal »

This article makes one logical fallacy after another, offhandedly referring to "economists" as an appeal to authority without providing any reference, proclaiming numbers and statistics without any evidence, making bias slurs and assumptions without giving any warrant or citation. It spews Keynesian Economics and a Communistic regard everywhere while blaming Capitalism for the consequences of Progressivism in the last century. That somehow the Recession is the fault of a rich CEO and not hyperinflation and credit expansion. And provides no accountable cross reference to other time periods or governments. It is a great relief to see that this was not upvoted by HN for its content but rather to demystify its preposterous pontification. Worst of all, the author tagged himself in the keywords, now talk about vanity.

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#34

Post by henrikschroder »

rudiger wrote: post #28

The top 1 percent of American income-earners account for ~25% of the nation’s total income every year. The top 1 percent of American wealth-holders account for ~40% of the total wealth. I hear statistics like this all the time but I never understand... What is the "correct" amount? The top 1 percent of anything by definition are going to hold some larger share. There are compelling theoretical reasons for wealth and…

The main criticism isn't that "the rich" have a lot of the income and assets, or that their share is increasing, it's that the rest of the people are getting less. The american society as a whole is getting richer, but the majority of the members of that society are getting poorer. Is that really the way things should be?

On the other hand, this piece only talks about inflation-adjusted net income. If you compare the quality of life or purchasing power I think that everyone is still better off with each year. Even though a typical middle-class family has less money now than 30 years ago, they can have mobile phones and a flat-screen TV and a computer and internet and one or two fuel-efficient comfortable cars, and none of those things existed 30 years ago.

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#35

Post by dschobel »

quickpost wrote: post #14
patio11 wrote: post #7

Top 1% in income is, hmm, $500kish? I hate to break it to you, but that isn't a CEO of a Fortune 500 company (that would imply the had 99 employees apiece, right?) or a hedge fund owner. That's like a couple dozen people who post to HN, or someone with a successful medical practice, or a well-rewarded peon who has leverage in an industry made of money. (A quant, for example.) $500k is a lot of money, but it isn't "se…

Your list of examples brings to mind a question I've had in my head for a while... What are the professions where a hard working and intelligent person can reach a $500k income with a high degree of certainty?

The highest mean salary in the US (according to the Dept. of Labor) is "surgeon" at $219,770.

So, to answer your question, there is no profession (in the USA, at least) with "a high degree of certainty" of hitting $500k.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#36

Post by [deleted] »

qq66 wrote: post #25
pg wrote: post #3

This is written more like a speech by a politician than as an attempt at analysis. The type of economic inequality that successful startups yield, and which accounts for a lot of the entries in the Forbes 400, is described merely as a theory cherished by the rich, and dismissed with evidence it would be a compliment to call anecdotal. And while there's a lot of talk about how the rich own the government, he doesn't e…

The Forbes 400 is mostly entrepreneurs but the "Forbes 40,000" is mostly financiers, only a small fraction of whom create net positive value.

[deleted]

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#37

Post by _delirium »

rudiger wrote: post #28

The top 1 percent of American income-earners account for ~25% of the nation’s total income every year. The top 1 percent of American wealth-holders account for ~40% of the total wealth. I hear statistics like this all the time but I never understand... What is the "correct" amount? The top 1 percent of anything by definition are going to hold some larger share. There are compelling theoretical reasons for wealth and…

A recent survey found rather surprising consensus between people on different part of the political spectrum if you asked them what an ideal wealth distribution would be. Overall, people thought the top 20% should ideally own about 32% of the wealth; liberals preferred 30%, while conservatives preferred 35%. People making over $100k/year were slightly more pro-inequality, but still only gave 40% as their ideal target. No demographic group gave anything close to the current proportion, which is around 83%, as their ideal target.

So it seems like "top 20% should own 35% of the wealth" is roughly the consensus of the vast majority of Americans, give or take 5%, across many demographic and political groups. Where they differ is what, if anything, we should do to make that happen.

Source: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20pre...

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#38

Post by rudiger »

dschobel wrote: post #35
quickpost wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your list of examples brings to mind a question I've had in my head for a while... What are the professions where a hard working and intelligent person can reach a $500k income with a high degree of certainty?

The highest mean salary in the US (according to the Dept. of Labor) is "surgeon" at $219,770. So, to answer your question, there is no profession (in the USA, at least) with "a high degree of certainty" of hitting $500k. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

For "high degree of certainty", a median or percentile figure would be a better predictor than a mean.

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#39

Post by Jabbles »

tesseract wrote: post #21
gaius wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same situation here in the UK - you become one of the hated "rich" at about GBP 37k where income tax goes up to 40%. Nowhere in the Home Counties is that enough to get a mortgage even on a 1-bedroom flat, let alone a house. A super-tax of 50% kicks in at GBP 150k - but an ordinary family home costs around GBP 500k. As normal in politics, the middle classes are being raped for the benefit of those at the top and at th…

> GBP 37k What is that percentile wise? As an American, I am perpetually shocked at how low UK salaries sound when I hear them, especially given that I know consumer goods are more expensive on your side of the pond. Is it made up for by comparatively lower cost of housing or other essential items or what? Or is there a huge transatlantic income gap that I never really hear about (mostly it's cost of living differenc…

The top 1% income-wise threshold is ~£100,000, rising to £350,000 for the top 0.1%.

£37,000 is very close to the top 10% threshold.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn76.pdf Page 9

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

#40

Post by onan_barbarian »

qq66 wrote: post #25
pg wrote: post #3

This is written more like a speech by a politician than as an attempt at analysis. The type of economic inequality that successful startups yield, and which accounts for a lot of the entries in the Forbes 400, is described merely as a theory cherished by the rich, and dismissed with evidence it would be a compliment to call anecdotal. And while there's a lot of talk about how the rich own the government, he doesn't e…

The Forbes 400 is mostly entrepreneurs but the "Forbes 40,000" is mostly financiers, only a small fraction of whom create net positive value.

The Forbes 400 contains a mix of entrepreneurs and inherited wealth, and tends to describe people as self-made if there is _any_ way of justifying that at all. For example, you typically might raise an eyebrow at the description of Philip Anschutz as 'self-made'... from Anschutz's wikipedia page:

"Anschutz bought out his father's drilling company in 1961" (age 22)

... as you do.

Paging down the list shows a quite interesting mix of self-made to lesser or greater extents, but a lot of Waltons and Rockerfellers... still.

More broadly, the emphasis on the ultra-rich isn't enormously illuminating either way, although it's worth noting that a lot of the 'entirely self-made' ultra-rich come from extremely comfortable upper-middle-class backgrounds, most obviously Bill Gates.

I would be suprised to hear any evidence supporting your "Forbes 40,000" line - got any, or are you just making it up?

Post reply on HN