7 ms·
I take your point, but "The 1%" she is not. At least, not unless she happens to have a net worth of ~$9M, which is the floor for 1%erdom in the U.S. Nor are mo
by bstrand 13y ago
I take your point, but "The 1%" she is not. At least, not unless she happens to have a net worth of ~$9M, which is the floor for 1%erdom in the U.S.
Nor are most "techies", even if they are fortunate enough to be an exception to the downward trend in real wages (for the moment.)
- arkades 13y agoThe floor is more like 370k$. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Hou... http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/20/news/economy/top-1-percent/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/20/news/economy/top-1-percent/i...
- chunky1994 13y agobstrand mentioned net worth, not annual income. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/?_r=0 http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-t... The linked article, states a floor of $8.4 million, which is ~ $9 million.
- 001sky 13y agoTo further the point, $370k is like ~5pc of 8-9 million. Which is to say that if you are <working> for wages, even at 370k your not that well off. If you had $9mm in the bank/investment portofolio, you wouldn't be "working", you'd be counting your passive investment income of ~$370k.