Things you have recently learnt
Comments
-
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.0 -
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.0 -
What would happen to this when you factor in things like amount of holiday and health care? I must confess, I wouldn't want to live in the US whatever the salary.First.Aspect said:...the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
1 -
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.0 -
You aren't right about this. Does California have its own federal govt? Its own military? Currency? Its own central bank? does its borrowing rate reflect California the US Etc?rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
Perhaps a better comparison is Europe as a whole, in which case pick Switzerland, Monaco ir Luxembourg.
We would be Puerto Rico.
0 -
Or possibly Virginia.0
-
rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.0 -
Also look here: California's mean wage was twice its median wage in 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_median_wage_and_mean_wage
California Median $47,920 , Average $93,517.0 -
lol you're just arbitrarily defining geographies. Britain is 10% of Europe to which population and wealth has (or perhaps had) gravitated. That confers all sorts of advantages blah blah.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.
Lads, here's a clue; it's all arbitrary and there is no such thing as a completely fair comparison in this game, so complaining it isn't is a bit like complaining the Tour has cyclists in it.
Honestly, I don't really care. I have ambitions to be a top 1% earner and I suspect plenty here are. Plus I spend most of my time speaking to 1% earners about their pay so it's quite front of mind for me.
The idea that you'd have to earn near a mill to be top 1% in the US blows my mind and is a nice little data point in the wider context of the US economy going gangbusters.0 -
A future in statistics does not beckon RC.rick_chasey said:
lol you're just arbitrarily defining geographies. Britain is 10% of Europe to which population and wealth has (or perhaps had) gravitated. That confers all sorts of advantages blah blah.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.
Lads, here's a clue; it's all arbitrary and there is no such thing as a completely fair comparison in this game, so complaining it isn't is a bit like complaining the Tour has cyclists in it.
Honestly, I don't really care. I have ambitions to be a top 1% earner and I suspect plenty here are. Plus I spend most of my time speaking to 1% earners about their pay so it's quite front of mind for me.
The idea that you'd have to earn near a mill to be top 1% in the US blows my mind and is a nice little data point in the wider context of the US economy going gangbusters.
$400k or $600K is not nearly a million.
You are getting into a saying the same thing in different ways spiral again. You are still wrong.0 -
Aw, come on FA. Here's the bbrg table. That number near the top, the $952,902, that one? *whispers* it's almost a million *whispers*First.Aspect said:
A future in statistics does not beckon RC.rick_chasey said:
lol you're just arbitrarily defining geographies. Britain is 10% of Europe to which population and wealth has (or perhaps had) gravitated. That confers all sorts of advantages blah blah.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.
Lads, here's a clue; it's all arbitrary and there is no such thing as a completely fair comparison in this game, so complaining it isn't is a bit like complaining the Tour has cyclists in it.
Honestly, I don't really care. I have ambitions to be a top 1% earner and I suspect plenty here are. Plus I spend most of my time speaking to 1% earners about their pay so it's quite front of mind for me.
The idea that you'd have to earn near a mill to be top 1% in the US blows my mind and is a nice little data point in the wider context of the US economy going gangbusters.
$400k or $600K is not nearly a million.
You are getting into a saying the same thing in different ways spiral again. You are still wrong.
0 -
What is it in Buckinghamshire, or Surrey? Or Westminster?rick_chasey said:
Aw, come on FA. Here's the bbrg table. That number near the top, the $952,902, that one? *whispers* it's almost a million *whispers*First.Aspect said:
A future in statistics does not beckon RC.rick_chasey said:
lol you're just arbitrarily defining geographies. Britain is 10% of Europe to which population and wealth has (or perhaps had) gravitated. That confers all sorts of advantages blah blah.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.
Lads, here's a clue; it's all arbitrary and there is no such thing as a completely fair comparison in this game, so complaining it isn't is a bit like complaining the Tour has cyclists in it.
Honestly, I don't really care. I have ambitions to be a top 1% earner and I suspect plenty here are. Plus I spend most of my time speaking to 1% earners about their pay so it's quite front of mind for me.
The idea that you'd have to earn near a mill to be top 1% in the US blows my mind and is a nice little data point in the wider context of the US economy going gangbusters.
$400k or $600K is not nearly a million.
You are getting into a saying the same thing in different ways spiral again. You are still wrong.0 -
(OK FA, a little Friday wisdom in returnFirst.Aspect said:
What is it in Buckinghamshire, or Surrey? Or Westminster?rick_chasey said:
Aw, come on FA. Here's the bbrg table. That number near the top, the $952,902, that one? *whispers* it's almost a million *whispers*First.Aspect said:
A future in statistics does not beckon RC.rick_chasey said:
lol you're just arbitrarily defining geographies. Britain is 10% of Europe to which population and wealth has (or perhaps had) gravitated. That confers all sorts of advantages blah blah.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.
Lads, here's a clue; it's all arbitrary and there is no such thing as a completely fair comparison in this game, so complaining it isn't is a bit like complaining the Tour has cyclists in it.
Honestly, I don't really care. I have ambitions to be a top 1% earner and I suspect plenty here are. Plus I spend most of my time speaking to 1% earners about their pay so it's quite front of mind for me.
The idea that you'd have to earn near a mill to be top 1% in the US blows my mind and is a nice little data point in the wider context of the US economy going gangbusters.
$400k or $600K is not nearly a million.
You are getting into a saying the same thing in different ways spiral again. You are still wrong.
. When you want to refute an argument, it's easier to bring forth your own evidence, rather than just asking wildly. You're not marking an exam paper)
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=top+1%+earners+in+Buckinghamshire0 -
I'd dispute that the 1% stat was at all surprising.rick_chasey said:
I'm not conflating the two.shirley_basso said:yes but wage inequality isn't a macro thing, so why bring it up and conflate the two?
It goes like this.
I post an interesting thing about 1% wages.
People whine that american economy blah blah.
I then point out the american economy is still lit.
You complain I'm conflating the two > i'm not.
Americans get paid more. They also die younger. And not just because they are so fond of shooting stuff.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Suffolk has a greater population density than southern California.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The average salary in Surrey is 40% above the UK average.
Personally I'm more average than RC and I don't measure myself against the 1%, top 0.5% or top 0.1%.
It's also a somewhat arbitrary boundary. Others have pointed out the convergence at slightly lower percentiles and we of course don't know about the slightly more distorted upper bands even in the UK. How many very high earners in the UK report personal income as something other as income or even as income in the UK?
It would be more informative to look at the bell curves as a whole, adjusted for cost of living (also conveniently ignored by RC, whichever way that would skew the figures). I think what you would see is big divergence in the small number of people at the upper end, a higher median by about 20% and a much larger spread in the US with many more on low wages.
The other thing about the US economy is how much of it is actually measured. Their equivalent of the gig economy, with under reported figures and anonymous irrelevant people outside of the system, but who keep things clean, is depressingly huge. So, although it definitely doesn't account for the difference, it does mean thst the 1% of people in the US figures is actually rather fewer than the actual 1%. Same here, but to a lesser extent.0 -
Lol. The ability for this forum to dispute any humanities data for comparison continues to know no bounds.
✌🏻
The equivalent of the reply guys complaining about how no one actually experiences the headline inflation number so we should all live by own own personal number 🙄0 -
Americans get paid shitloads more than brits for the same job. It's just a fact.0
-
Amazing. Did you know that during the day, light refracting through the air means the sky looks blue but towards the end of the day because the light goes through more air to each your eye, the refraction means it looks red?rjsterry said:Suffolk has a greater population density than southern California.
0 -
I thought that was the whole point of this place.
You've posted a number of times on how much better off Americans are than Britons. Financially on average I'm sure that is the case. I'm not sure what it proves other than different countries are different. See it as compensation for the shorter life expectancy, the absolute bin fire of their political system and deeply ingrained segregation.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
And you are uninterested in any nuance.rick_chasey said:Sure. I am surprised by how big the gap has got!
0 -
I’d love to read Rick’s dissertation. I assume it started with ‘this is my assertion’ and then looked for any evidence he thought backed it up. Doubt any peer review queries went down well.0
-
Stevo would like that chart, he could argue it shows low taxation helps attract high earners.0
-
I certainly wouldn’t want to be at the bottom end of earners there with their views on state support.rjsterry said:I thought that was the whole point of this place.
You've posted a number of times on how much better off Americans are than Britons. Financially on average I'm sure that is the case. I'm not sure what it proves other than different countries are different. See it as compensation for the shorter life expectancy, the absolute bin fire of their political system and deeply ingrained segregation.0 -
I was equally surprised at how bad their life expectancy had got.rick_chasey said:Sure. I am surprised by how big the gap has got!
Oh, and they can keep all their proto- Gilead hypocrite religious extremists as well.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Your own chart shows that figure as being the top 1% in Connecticut. There are 10 states listed, the 10th requires $659,000 to be in the top 1%. What do the remainder require?rick_chasey said:
Aw, come on FA. Here's the bbrg table. That number near the top, the $952,902, that one? *whispers* it's almost a million *whispers*First.Aspect said:
A future in statistics does not beckon RC.rick_chasey said:
lol you're just arbitrarily defining geographies. Britain is 10% of Europe to which population and wealth has (or perhaps had) gravitated. That confers all sorts of advantages blah blah.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.
Lads, here's a clue; it's all arbitrary and there is no such thing as a completely fair comparison in this game, so complaining it isn't is a bit like complaining the Tour has cyclists in it.
Honestly, I don't really care. I have ambitions to be a top 1% earner and I suspect plenty here are. Plus I spend most of my time speaking to 1% earners about their pay so it's quite front of mind for me.
The idea that you'd have to earn near a mill to be top 1% in the US blows my mind and is a nice little data point in the wider context of the US economy going gangbusters.
$400k or $600K is not nearly a million.
You are getting into a saying the same thing in different ways spiral again. You are still wrong.
So your chart shows you don't need to be earning anything like $1m to be in the top 1% stateside.
Besides being an old git I realise that what you earn compared to others means nothing. That your family are happy and healthy means infinitely more than wealth.0 -
-
Have you tried not being an old git?veronese68 said:
Your own chart shows that figure as being the top 1% in Connecticut. There are 10 states listed, the 10th requires $659,000 to be in the top 1%. What do the remainder require?rick_chasey said:
Aw, come on FA. Here's the bbrg table. That number near the top, the $952,902, that one? *whispers* it's almost a million *whispers*First.Aspect said:
A future in statistics does not beckon RC.rick_chasey said:
lol you're just arbitrarily defining geographies. Britain is 10% of Europe to which population and wealth has (or perhaps had) gravitated. That confers all sorts of advantages blah blah.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.
Lads, here's a clue; it's all arbitrary and there is no such thing as a completely fair comparison in this game, so complaining it isn't is a bit like complaining the Tour has cyclists in it.
Honestly, I don't really care. I have ambitions to be a top 1% earner and I suspect plenty here are. Plus I spend most of my time speaking to 1% earners about their pay so it's quite front of mind for me.
The idea that you'd have to earn near a mill to be top 1% in the US blows my mind and is a nice little data point in the wider context of the US economy going gangbusters.
$400k or $600K is not nearly a million.
You are getting into a saying the same thing in different ways spiral again. You are still wrong.
So your chart shows you don't need to be earning anything like $1m to be in the top 1% stateside.
Besides being an old git I realise that what you earn compared to others means nothing. That your family are happy and healthy means infinitely more than wealth.0 -
I tried it when I was younger.shirley_basso said:
Have you tried not being an old git?veronese68 said:
Your own chart shows that figure as being the top 1% in Connecticut. There are 10 states listed, the 10th requires $659,000 to be in the top 1%. What do the remainder require?rick_chasey said:
Aw, come on FA. Here's the bbrg table. That number near the top, the $952,902, that one? *whispers* it's almost a million *whispers*First.Aspect said:
A future in statistics does not beckon RC.rick_chasey said:
lol you're just arbitrarily defining geographies. Britain is 10% of Europe to which population and wealth has (or perhaps had) gravitated. That confers all sorts of advantages blah blah.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
lol. Not especially no. California is obviously an interesting comparison because it is comparable to a European country but its economy is just bananas.briantrumpet said:
If California is about 10% of the US, and London is about 10% of the UK... wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?rick_chasey said:
I mean, states are fairly normal comparisons for European countries, given their size and population.First.Aspect said:Okay, bit more context. I just looked up top 1% in the US. Googled answers varied from about $400k to about $600k or higher, but it isn't clear which of the more eye watering stats are actually household incomes.
In the UK, it's actually £200k, which a month or two ago was about $220k, and now is about $260k - showing the hazards of comparing just by currency values. I know there are data that try to adjust based on local purchasing power. If you've been to the US recently, you'll see that prices are quite high for a lot of goods, so I'd say £200k pa. here is analogous to about $300k there, all in all.
It is a big difference, nonetheless.
But RC is comparing apples and pears. These averages vary by about a factor of 3 from state to state. Comparing California's top 1% to our UK wide top 1% is a bit like comparing the top 1% of earners in London with the national average. In just the same way, most Californians live in the Bay Area or LA, both of which are quite extreme wage and cost bubbles.
I hope this makes everyone happier, that the top 1% in the US are only about twice as well off as the top 1% here, and the median only about 30% better off. Yay.
California has 40m population.
London is a city so you can compare it to other cities.
You're not getting my point that California is the 10% of a country to which population and wealth has gravitated. Ditto London as part of the UK (or England). That confers it all sorts of advantages.
Lads, here's a clue; it's all arbitrary and there is no such thing as a completely fair comparison in this game, so complaining it isn't is a bit like complaining the Tour has cyclists in it.
Honestly, I don't really care. I have ambitions to be a top 1% earner and I suspect plenty here are. Plus I spend most of my time speaking to 1% earners about their pay so it's quite front of mind for me.
The idea that you'd have to earn near a mill to be top 1% in the US blows my mind and is a nice little data point in the wider context of the US economy going gangbusters.
$400k or $600K is not nearly a million.
You are getting into a saying the same thing in different ways spiral again. You are still wrong.
So your chart shows you don't need to be earning anything like $1m to be in the top 1% stateside.
Besides being an old git I realise that what you earn compared to others means nothing. That your family are happy and healthy means infinitely more than wealth.
0
