[mcdeltat]

I don't know about America, but keep in mind that having an income which is a large number doesn't necessarily mean you have tonnes of wealth (in most general sense of the word), due to cost of living. In my country, you could be in the top 5% of earners and still not be automatically set or life or anything like that, because tax and housing is so bloody expensive it's ridiculous. Even on $200k+ you're still stuck at that job for a decade or more to afford a low-to-mid tier house/apartment, unless you have generational wealth. No, you won't be homeless, which is a lot to be thankful for, but you're still pretty locked in to being a wage minion. In my country, I reckon the top 5% earning is more like where the average should be, in order for the average person to have a decent life.

[amrocha]

Being “stuck” at a job for a decade, living a life with zero financial worries, does not compare to the average worker who has to work for 40+ years, cannot afford to purchase property, and has to rely on social security in old age when they can’t work anymore.

Claiming these are anywhere comparable is an incredibly lack of perspective.

[mcdeltat]

Yall are missing the point and reading what you want to read. I am quite aware of the perspective. There are people on the streets in my city because the median income is $70k and the median house is $1.5M. They are thoroughly screwed by the system. My point is not to garner sympathy for the top earners. My point is that almost all of us are earning far below what we should when you look at the grand scheme of things. The war is not between the average man on the street and the average man at a tech company. It's deeper than that.

[amrocha]

I think I see what you’re saying, and I agree with you that the wealth inequality between the ultra rich and everyone else is the real challenge. The tech worker with a Google salary is a lot closer to a homeless man on the street than he is to the true 1% in the US, and that’s a real problem.

[rswail]

The top 1% are closer to a homeless person on the street than they are to the top 0.1%.

The wealth inequality in the US is the underlying fracture in the social compact that is driving the populist politics that are at play.

[epicureanideal]

Although wealth inequality would not be such a big deal if there were sufficient merit based social mobility and plentiful opportunity to develop merit.

[amrocha]

There is no merit that warrants more than 10 million dollars. At that point money is just power, not consumption.

[dataflow]

> does not compare to the average worker who has to work for 40+ years, cannot afford to purchase property, and has to rely on social security in old age when they can’t work anymore. Claiming these are anywhere comparable is an incredibly lack of perspective.

The parent was talking about their country, not the USA.

[amrocha]

I’m not familiar with any country where this pattern is untrue. From Canada and USA, to Brazil, France, and Japan.

[saagarjha]

That depends on how you live your life. Most of the people who are making even the top 1% of the salaries in the US are probably not set for life. They could be if they quit immediately and moved to Vietnam maybe, but otherwise their cash is probably locked up in a house or spent on things like their car or school for their kids.

[sangnoir]

What does "set for life" mean? If you're earning $788,000 per year (top 1%), there are many places you can live and be set for life in the US, or even in the state one is currently living in after working for a few years.

Obviously you won't be set for life at any income level if you spend money as quickly as you earn it - hedonic treadmill and all - but there is an income level sufficient to meet all of ones needs, and the rest can be saved and invested.

Rule of thumb is: if you can barely afford the lifestyle you have with an income, you probably can't maintain the same lifestyle without an income.

[saagarjha]

People who make $700k a year generally do not live in a way that makes it possible for them to retire at 30. Usually they’re aiming for 50+ or even 65 like everyone else, which of course means they both are spending more than someone making $70k but also their requirements when they retire are more. If they let go of the latter they could in fact be “set for life” sooner but it’s typically not the case that someone is capable of doing that suddenly. You have to plan for it over years and decades even then.

[elegantlie]

I worked in big tech in one of the coastal cities. Most of my coworkers, although great people, were delusional in terms of money. I was getting paid between 200k to 400k during my tenure, and after working there a few years, I was set for life.

Reality check: even in "high cost of living areas", typical salaries are around 50k. Most of my coworkers came from wealthy families and perceived buying condos in Chelsea as middle class activities. I don't think they saw themselves as rich. And to be fair, many probably didn't actually save that much money, because they had such expensive lifestyles.

[mcdeltat]

I agree with that most tech workers are delusional about money. Yet I still disagree with being the set for life, in my area.

Out of curiosity, what are the tax rates and housing prices where you are?

In my area, the maths would work something like this. Let's say $400k income (extremely high for my city). After tax, more like $200k. Rent might be $30k, plus other costs, let's be generous and say $40k total. That comes out around $160k savings per year. Lets say you work there for 5 years (which IMO is a long time at the start of your career), that's $800k. Median house is $1.5M. You could probably buy a substandard apartment and be back to 0 savings. Is it possible? Absolutely. Is it better than what everyone else is getting? Absolutely. But I don't think it's exactly "set for life" given you've achieved pretty bare minimum...

What I've also found is there's a correlation between people in tech who don't seem to care about money, and having already started from wealth. Oh, how are you saving so much money? Right, you live in your parents' second house... How did you afford that apartment? Oh, your parents paid for half of it... (For added effect, add in a rich partner too.) Etc etc. Strip away generational/systematic wealth and even at the top of the layperson ladder, you're barely getting anywhere.

[sangnoir]

> Yet I still disagree with being the set for life, in my area

I think this might be the root of the difference in perspective. Very few people can be set for life maintaining a lifestyle only just afforded by their income. You may have to move to a cheaper neighborhood or less costly metroplex, and perhaps not buy a new car as frequently. But you won't have to work a day again

[SR2Z]

At $300k, your "cost of living" argument falls apart pretty much everywhere in the US.

Even at $200k, only NYC/SF are so expensive that cost of living changes are meaningful.