Things you have recently learnt
Comments
-
Is that a mistaken identity thing, because someone happens to agree with me, or is this a who has the best degree willy waving thing you've started?rick_chasey said:
Smashed it thanks. First ✌🏻Pross said: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 -
Think we over egg the free healthcare when people are waiting 60 hours for an ambulance...0
-
Life expectancy in the US is falling.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Jezyboy said:
Think we over egg the free healthcare when people are waiting 60 hours for an ambulance...
The Tories' plan is working.0 -
I didn’t bring it up tbf.First.Aspect said:
Is that a mistaken identity thing, because someone happens to agree with me, or is this a who has the best degree willy waving thing you've started?rick_chasey said:
Smashed it thanks. First ✌🏻Pross said: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 -
To highlight why comparing States to countries doesn’t really work, Connecticut is top of the list but how much of that wealth is earned in Connecticut? I assume it is too as that is where the people who make serious wealth in NYC tend to live so it is more comparable with Surrey.0
-
It would be interesting to check state tax rules. Used to be that Delaware was the go-to corporation tax haven, to the extent that some companies actually based there (rather than having only a registered office there for tax reasons) were investigated for tax evasion. I'm wondering if the pendulum has swung somewhere else, or it it is different for personal taxation in some states.0
-
Shouldn't we stick to what we're good at?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.2 -
Another graph with a Y-axis that starts at zero.
0 -
Just to add to this, I’ve recently started getting posts on my Facebook feed suggesting I might be interested in a group titled ‘cycling for those aged 70 plus’. A little premature at the moment 😂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 -
Coincidentally, me too.veronese68 said:
Just to add to this, I’ve recently started getting posts on my Facebook feed suggesting I might be interested in a group titled ‘cycling for those aged 70 plus’. A little premature at the moment 😂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.
A bit previous. Should we be offended? That said, I look damned good for 70+ 🤣The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Crisps were only sold in plain or salted until 1954
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
Paprika.0
-
-
Anything supposedly meat flavour is good as well. Except Bovril crisps, which were a mis-step.
Do Pringles count as crisps? I think not. They only taste good because of the super high surface area. But they do taste good.0 -
As much as I like a fancy crisp, my favourite will always be the walkers/lays crisps. They just are so much more strongly flavoured.
I am torn between prawn cocktail and salt & vinegar. shout out to Worcestershire sauce flavour (which I have not seen in about a decade).0 -
Of all time? Tudor Pickled Onion.rick_chasey said:What’s everyone’s favourite crisp flavour?
Current? Simple "vanilla" Salt & Vinegar. Walkers or GW, no fancy brands required.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Am I the only person who dislikes salt and vinegar?1
-
Hedgehog0
-
If you like strongly flavoured, you need to get some Co-Op sea salt and Chardonnay vinegar crisps. Highly addictive.rick_chasey said:As much as I like a fancy crisp, my favourite will always be the walkers/lays crisps. They just are so much more strongly flavoured.
I am torn between prawn cocktail and salt & vinegar. shout out to Worcestershire sauce flavour (which I have not seen in about a decade).
1 -
Yup, agreed.mrb123 said:
If you like strongly flavoured, you need to get some Co-Op sea salt and Chardonnay vinegar crisps. Highly addictive.rick_chasey said:As much as I like a fancy crisp, my favourite will always be the walkers/lays crisps. They just are so much more strongly flavoured.
I am torn between prawn cocktail and salt & vinegar. shout out to Worcestershire sauce flavour (which I have not seen in about a decade).0 -
My wife, who seems to have the same identical taste in crisp as you.First.Aspect said:Am I the only person who dislikes salt and vinegar?
0 -
these. Pret did something similar for a while but no longer0 -
Discovered Mackies Pickled Onion crisps when staying up in the Highlands earlier this year. Assume they're a Scottish brand as quite hard to find South of the border. Very good though - superb with a cold beer after a day on the hills.0
-
Sainos do them IIRC.shirley_basso said:
these. Pret did something similar for a while but no longer0 -
Discerning.rick_chasey said:
My wife, who seems to have the same identical taste in crisp as you.First.Aspect said:Am I the only person who dislikes salt and vinegar?
0 -
yes i know where to get them. Pret did their own brand with a very similar flavour for a while which were excellent.rick_chasey said:
Sainos do them IIRC.shirley_basso said:
these. Pret did something similar for a while but no longer0 -
-
I eat them but they aren't a favourite and usually the ones left at the end of a multipack but I do like salt and vinegar Discos for some reason.First.Aspect said:Am I the only person who dislikes salt and vinegar?
T Bone Steak flavoured Roysters are my favourite but not enough of them in a pack. For everyday crisps I like prawn cocktail.0
