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

Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

bfi.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#61

Post by mbg721 »

frankbreetz wrote: post #57
kansface wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the lifestyle of people actually decrease from the 60s to today? I don’t think that is possibly true. Pretty much no American man would choose to go back in time and live in the 1960s (at the age of 25) given the extra purchasing power... or any intervening time in between.

I think the fact that people are trying to "Make America Great Again" means a lot of people would go back in time, especially men.

There are some rose-colored glasses involved, of course, but there are plenty of people who would trade some extra purchasing power for a better pace of life, more social cohesion, and the status that sibling-post mentions.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#62

Post by gher-shyu3i »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #56
gher-shyu3i wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily, is selling your body on prostitution websites more freedom? I think not. It's known what women face in a secular captialism-first economy.

Yes, having the freedom to sell your body on prostitution websites is more freedom. I do not know what the rest of your comment means, but mine is pretty clear that not having to rely on a man to earn money and then give it to them is more independence and freedom than depending on a man to give them money. PS Isn't it funny that a women "selling her body" on prostitution websites is bad, but a man (or woman) selling…

Of course selling one's body doing prostitution is bad, I don't know how that's even an arguing point. Not all "freedom" is good, some of it is destructive, like the example above.

> but a man (or woman) selling their body doing back breaking work for menial wages is OK?

Straw man fallacy.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#63

Post by bhupy »

frankbreetz wrote: post #49
bhupy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An idea that I really like is to do what countries like Singapore and the Scandinavian countries do: create a public sovereign wealth fund, and then do what States like Alaska do: divert the dividends from the fund directly to the people. Alaska's Permanent Fund is only allowed to invest in Alaskan companies and is "only" $75B in size ( https://www.alaskajournal.com/2021-02-24/fund-continues-bull... ), and even then…

The thing I worry about Universal Income, which the Alaska situation seems to be, is that there will be a bifurcation of people who need the UI and spend it every month and the people who put it into an investment. I guess if the checks keep coming it is not an issue, but if there is an event where the UI has to stop there will be a lot of pain. I think some sort of forced savings, that is only able to drawn upon at…

Totally agree that the devil is in the implementation details which can make or break the idea as a whole.

One potential way to mitigate these risks is to have the fund be set up with a strict breakdown, say, 20% of the dividends can go into a pot that the government can use for discretionary spending, and 80% goes to the people equally divided as a dividend, and the only way to change this percentage is with a 2/3s majority. The percentage split and the consensus threshold are certainly debatable.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#64

Post by lotsofpulp »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #62
lotsofpulp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, having the freedom to sell your body on prostitution websites is more freedom. I do not know what the rest of your comment means, but mine is pretty clear that not having to rely on a man to earn money and then give it to them is more independence and freedom than depending on a man to give them money. PS Isn't it funny that a women "selling her body" on prostitution websites is bad, but a man (or woman) selling…

Of course selling one's body doing prostitution is bad, I don't know how that's even an arguing point. Not all "freedom" is good, some of it is destructive, like the example above. > but a man (or woman) selling their body doing back breaking work for menial wages is OK? Straw man fallacy.

How can it be a straw man when it’s not even refuting it? I addressed your argument directly by showing it is more independence and freedom.

The post script is a humorous observation of what “selling your body” is used to refer to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#65

Post by prennert »

dahfizz wrote: post #44
prennert wrote: post #6

I was hoping to see how much people earn in their lifetime. And how that changed over time. I was wondering the other day other how many years are high earners are actually earning a very high income. In-equality wise it is very different if people in the 2 percentile of income stay there for a decade or more or if they are in that income bracket only for a few years while doing a specific job and drop down to lower…

This data is pretty much what you're asking about[1]. In summary, people in the top income quintile have a 70% chance of staying there. In other words, less than one third of the top income bracket are "new" people every decade. 40% of people also escape the bottom income quintile every decade. Overall, the diagonal on the chart shows that you are pretty likely to stay in the same quintile over time, but there is sti…

That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks a lot!

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#66

Post by lotsofpulp »

otnihoithiu wrote: post #35
lotsofpulp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least part of that is probably a function of how hard the work is on one’s body. A hard labor worker with a high income in 30s/40s is presumably more likely to lose that income in 50s/60s/70s than a non hard labor worker (e.g. office job).

Highly paid, older office workers are first in line when layoffs happen. Those people then face age discrimination trying to get new positions. Can really derail your earnings.

Yes, there is dramatically increase probability of obsolescence for anyone after 50, but from my experience, the office workers tend to have a much better network to fall back on.

Either way, one should definitely be investing in passive income sources for their 50s and up.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#67

Post by gher-shyu3i »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #64
gher-shyu3i wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course selling one's body doing prostitution is bad, I don't know how that's even an arguing point. Not all "freedom" is good, some of it is destructive, like the example above. > but a man (or woman) selling their body doing back breaking work for menial wages is OK? Straw man fallacy.

How can it be a straw man when it’s not even refuting it? I addressed your argument directly by showing it is more independence and freedom. The post script is a humorous observation of what “selling your body” is used to refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

More "independence and freedom" is just an illusion. She's simply a slave to the desires of men looking at her body. Only a secular capitalistic society can believe that any good can come out of it.

It's a straw man because no one brought up the issue of "selling your body doing back breaking work", or whether that is acceptable or not.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#68

Post by dbsmith83 »

frankbreetz wrote: post #58
dbsmith83 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me the increases of efficiency should allow all people a minimum quality life(...), no matter their contribution to society. I think this can turn people that are a strain on the system to contributors How would they be contributors? I'm thinking maybe you mean that they will participate economically (buying stuff and making more babies). Is that really a good thing though, to have people who do nothing…

no, I mean if someone doesn't have a place to live it will be harder for them to get a job or go to school to get skills to get a job. There is still competition if there isn't people dying in the streets

Ah ok, I misunderstood your point then. I had seen other discussions on HN about UBI and people proclaiming that it should be ok if people don't want to work at all

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#69

Post by prennert »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #37
brk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. In my experience, the higher earning potential can be maintained, though overall salary growth is lower, as you start to hit a bit of a theoretical earnings ceiling. Though, that is generally of limited consequence when you're at those levels. Another issue not addressed is lack of employment flexibility. If you are in the top 5% of earners, by extension you are likely limited to the top 5% of all availab…

If you are in the top 5% of earners, you have the ability to save enough money so you can switch to whatever level of employment you want. Someone with a more "mainstream" income barely or never saves enough money to have the kind of security to just try out other employers or fields or regions. I am willing to bet a top 5% earner would be able to land a top quintile job just by asking people in their network.

That was exactly my motivation of asking this question. If you have a substantial disposable income available year-on-year, you have the option to decide whether to just pay-off your mortgage and then work in something of high personal value, but potentially with lower pay closer to the median. This will still leave you with considerable disposable income compared to your median-income peers at that point.

Alternatively, so I thought, high earners could continue to optimize for high pay to afford more luxuries.

My expectation was then that a considerable amount of high-earners would choose to trade income with work they value personally. Triggering social mobility by allowing someone else to take their place.

Reading these threads, I am thinking now that maybe this is not so much relevant. If it is true, as others have suggested, that high-earners have more chances to get into positions that are well paid almost by default, than the choice for high earners is not between high income or valuable work. They can do both, because even when they start working for an NGO or take government position, their income would be expected to be high.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#70

Post by CincinnatiMan »

sbagel wrote: post #31

Studying income inequality in the US by gender and age group while completely ignoring race feels wrong when it's such an impactful variable, especially considering it's getting worse over time. In 2016, the median net worth of non-Hispanic White households was $143,600. The median net worth of Black households was $12,920. Between 1983 and 2013, White households saw their wealth increased by 14%. But during the same…

In regards to the Federal Reserve page, it seems disingenuous to lump so many different people into “Other.” Even if there’s no mal-intent, it seems it could cause one to wonder if there’s a motive behind doing so.
Post reply on HN