[odiroot]

> You can't have a happy society with such extreme gaps between rich tech people and everyone else living in tents or off what they choose to spend their money on.

Doesn't really apply to EU. Bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, some doctors, etc are the (small-time) rich. Most of tech people barely touch the upper-middle class.

I have a feeling we're just not a respectable trade.

[slumdev]

"Rich tech people" is such a bizarre and mostly imaginary group to rail against.

> Doesn't really apply to EU. Bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, some doctors, etc are the (small-time) rich. Most of tech people barely touch the upper-middle class.

It's the same in the United States.

[moneywoes]

Yep, like 80% of tech people don't make as much as the average doctor ($270k+). Of course this is ignoring the opportunity cost of the extra education. Same applies to top lawyers and bankers.

[big_chungus]

I think many people don't realize that we've so inflated our currency that you can be worth $2 million and still be upper middle class. Doubly true if you choose to deal with the extortionate taxes of California.

[BlueTemplar]

Lol, you're not middle class (which is dying off anyway), you're top 10% aristocracy at that point : https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...

[JMTQp8lwXL]

The top 10% starts at $1.1 million. $2 million and up is top 6%.

https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta...

[big_chungus]

I'll try to respond, even though "lol" and linking an article isn't much to argue with.

I'm not worth that much money, though I do fine and have plenty of time to change that. I didn't have the SAT services or country clubs or private schools of your article. I went to an excellent school on a merit scholarship and not from entitlement.

You need to provide evidence for the middle class dying off. And you need to provide more than an opinion piece of rhetoric to substantiate your claim of a "10% aristocracy". Finally, you need to provide some evidence of why someone having more money than someone else is bad.

One thing I do agree with in your article: medicine and law are two state-sanctioned monopolies. I absolutely agree that the government ought to stop preventing competition. I also agree that the government should not prop up the financial sector or bail out any company, ever. Inflation is the biggest tax of all; great for finance and lousy for Americans.

From your article: "Let’s suppose that some of us do look up. We see the iceberg. Will that induce us to diminish our exertions in supreme child-rearing? The grim truth is that, as long as good parenting and good citizenship are in conflict, we’re just going to pack a few more violins for the trip."

I agree with removing government, but what's wrong with the way the top 10% of Americans are raising their children? What's the iceberg?

> My grandparents never lost faith in the limitless possibilities of a life free from government.

Yes, good.

> But in their last years, as the reserves passed down from the Colonel ran low, they became pretty diligent about collecting their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Unfortunately true. Everyone wants his handout, just take away the other guy's. Cut medicaid and increase farm subsidies, says one side; remove agricultural tariffs and more food stamps from the other. Let's get rid of both. Nobody gets to steal the wealth of another.

> regressive sales and property taxes.

You'll have to sell me on why "regressive" taxes are bad. As far as I'm concerned, here's how to fund the gov't: total expenses / number of adult citizens = each citizen's bill. Send it to everyone and everyone pays the same amount. This makes a lot of sense: within the stuff government ought to do (keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts), no one gets significantly more in services than another.

> The income-tax system that so offended my grandfather has had the unintended effect of creating a highly discreet category of government expenditures. They’re called “tax breaks,” but it’s better to think of them as handouts that spare the government the inconvenience of collecting the money in the first place.

This is disingenuous; stealing less money is not an expenditure.

> None of them can afford to live around here... In 1980, a house in St. Louis would trade for a decent studio apartment in Manhattan. Today that house will buy an 80-square-foot bathroom in the Big Apple.

Move elsewhere. I choose not to live in an uber-expensive metropolis of the "coastal elites" because I don't want to spend that much. Sounds like St. Louis is a fine place to start looking, especially with the advent of remote work.

> Local zoning regulation imposes excessive restrictions on housing development and drives up prices.

Yes. Zoning is stupid. The state has no right to tell a citizen what he may or may not do with his property.

All this amounts to roughly a hundred pounds of fine whine. One having more than another is not an issue except for envious people who wish to steal their wealth through the club of the state.

[BlueTemplar]

> You need to provide evidence for the middle class dying off.

Well, the demographics themselves might be elsewhere (or not), but the graph in the article does show the 90% doing worse. Especially if one equates "middle class" with "being able to afford health care and to go to college without being saddled by crushing debt".

> And you need to provide more than an opinion piece of rhetoric to substantiate your claim of a "10% aristocracy".

No, I don't think so, this isn't a research paper.

> Finally, you need to provide some evidence of why someone having more money than someone else is bad.

I don't, if only it was so easy !

> Send [the government bill] to everyone and everyone pays the same amount. This makes a lot of sense

No, it doesn't, I'm surprised that there are still people that would even think that - and how exactly are you going to tax homeless people that way, huh ?

[BlargMcLarg]

>Doesn't really apply to EU. Bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, some doctors, etc are the (small-time) rich.

Lawyers aren't doing that great anymore thanks to so many people jumping on the bandwagon and I'd be very wary of AI not completely revolutionizing court anytime soon, considering most of it is rule evaluation. Regarding doctors, aside from dedicated specialists and dentists, they also aren't doing that hot given the effort and sacrifices they make. The other jobs are self-explanatory: they have a long history with money, so money should be the least of their problems. If anything, I'd wager a self-employed tech person working as a senior dev or a consultant will do much better than any of those at an earlier age, and self-employment as a tech person would be much easier than any of those (aside from maybe a lawyer?). Aside from that, most of these people I'd generally consider upper-middle class. Moving to the upper class only seems to happen if you invest or become an entrepreneur / self-employed, and even then its unlikely. Most people in upper class were born in that state, raised with a huge advantage and require less effort to stay upper class than someone else getting into the upper class.

[jashmatthews]

German Doctors aren’t that well paid. Sub €100k is normal. But here they don’t finish medical school with half a million dollars in debt.

[odiroot]

I would probably retire, before I reached that kind of salary as a Software Engineer in Germany (especially as a foreigner from a post-communist state). There's a very hard glass ceiling here.

Alternatively I could highly increase my chances (and quality of life) by jumping the border to Switzerland.

[jashmatthews]

Google Munich? Amazon Berlin? Zalando? Many places with these kind of salaries for senior engineers in Germany. Many are foreigners (me included).