Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The world's richest 1% are people earning more than $100,000. The American median wage is ~$30,000.

The flashy headline is basically saying first world living standards are unsustainable.



They are unsustainable given the current resource consumption. There's a lot of room for improvement. We only have to make it worthwhile.

It's obviously worthwhile, it's about the survival of civilization after all. But apparently not worthwhile to the markets.


That's not true.

"On a global scale, an individual must have upwards of $744,400 in combined income, investments, and personal assets to rank in the top 1% of the world’s wealthiest individuals."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...


What does "combined income, investments, and personal assets" even mean? Income is money earned over some time period, how does one "combine" that with investments and assets?


>Income is money earned over some time period, how does one "combine" that with investments and assets?

Because the combination of all that is what capital is?


If I earn $10 per month, have $20 in capital, and $15 in personal assets, how do you combine those numbers into a single number? What does that single number represent?


The number is called "net worth" and is slightly complicated if you're married or own a lot of illiquid assets. It also has debt and other liabilities subtracted so a house on mortgage or leased car, or company owned assets do not count, for example.

It does not count control of corporations and political power, which can be important as well. (But tend to go hand in hand to a degree.)

There's also gross worth which is a total lifetime worth. This would be high if you used for example expensive education. But then this one is much more nebulous.


"Net worth" is perhaps capital + personal assets, but I don't think it includes anything like "yearly income" or "monthly income"?


Net worth is only assets and liabilities. Income doesn't get factored in to that until it's earned.


But what's the formula?



You are talking about wealth (net worth), not about income.


In Europe, most people earn nowhere near 100k USD, and as you just said in USA the median wage is 30k USD.

I'd still say Europe and most of the USA is "first world living standards".


100k usd is 40k eur if you take out taxes..


We also pay taxes in Europe.

An engineer's pre-tax salary in Europe would be like 20-60k euros in the South/East and 30-80k in the North.

The USA just has a lot more capital in tech so the demand for labor is a lot more robust. Europe has decent engineers but it's hard to command a high wage when there are a lot less companies competing for you and they have less capital to be able to pay you with.


>The flashy headline is basically saying first world living standards are unsustainable.

That is obviously true as can be seen from the rising CO2 levels and warming planet.


Well if 30k is the median in the US then even in the US a huge absolute majority does not belong to those 1%.


The world's richest 1% are people earning more than $100,000

Sorry for the DM link but https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5388245/Pay-bonanza...

“Number of staff at scandal-hit Oxfam earning more than £100,000 has doubled in seven years”


That's a bullshit measure! What number of people make more than an arbitrary threshold value does not say anything. Maybe all these people made $90,000 seven years ago, and $100,000 is just the new $90,000 in 2017. It's a large organization, I'm surprised they had only 11 people above $100,000 in 2017.


What point do you think you are making with this citation?


What point do you think you are making with this citation?

The point that Oxfam these days is a business and reports like this are its product, and the metric of success is how much money these products make for Oxfam, not how much good they do. They technically still are a charity but they have strayed very far from their roots.


Can you explain why you feel that citation supports this point? Because it doesn’t appear to be related at all.


The piece of data you cite has, at best, a tangential relationship to the conclusion you want to rest on it.


"You gotta increase inequality to fight inequality!"




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: