
Stop Pretending You’re Not Rich - lorenzfx
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-pretending-youre-not-rich.html
======
stult
I think the author misses some of the point of the "99%" rhetoric. It's not
that someone in the 98th percentile making a 6 figure salary doesn't feel well
off, it's that they don't feel any control over the political system. In the
post-Citizens United landscape, multi-millionaires and billionaires who can
afford to solo fund a PAC have outsized influence over politicians and
government agencies. The impression that control has been ceded to such people
is reinforced by their increasing monopoly on the accrual of tangible
political benefits, which manifest in the forms of tax breaks and favorable
regulatory decisions. And for those of us who are younger, student loan debt
has delayed the meaningful accumulation of wealth via home purchases (plus not
paying rent) and investment savings even when we earn such high salaries, so
our annual incomes don't reflect our true economic status relative to prior
generations.

~~~
smsm42
Rich people has always had large influence in politics. Being rich means
commanding a lot of resources, that's literally the definition. Having a lot
of resources makes you influential. It's not the only way to have influence -
one can be poor or average and still influential - but it's definitely one of
the ways. Pretending that something - be it "Citizens united" decision or
anything else - created this situation is extremely naive and ignores the
whole human history and history of politics. Wealth, influence and politics
are always interlinked, at least in a free lawful society - in a totalitarian
one, property means nothing, and resources are distributed in other way, so
influence is gained in other ways.

All that said, money don't matter as much in politics as some of the
propaganda tries to tell. They are important, but they are not everything.
There are numerous examples in US history alone where the candidate who spent
the most lost, and the candidate who was the richest lost. By now, there's
enough money on each side of any issue that the money on the sides is no
longer the issue.

As for student debt etc. - this is the result of applying "feel good"
solutions without considering the economic consequences. If you inject a huge
stream of money into education system by providing unlimited federally
supported loans, you get the prices go up, and you get the debt. And if you
support home ownership and wealth accumulation by home ownership, house prices
necessarily skyrocket and newcomers get priced out of the market. You can not
have one without the other.

~~~
cmiles74
While this makes sense, I don't think you're going to make much progress
convincing those suffering from oversized student loan debt that they are the
expected "economic consequences" of a policy you believe to have been
misguided. In this particular thread, it rings especially painful: the article
discusses the way the upper 20% maintain their hold on power and resources;
raising the cost of education clearly helps that goal. The poster to whom your
responding points out that their loan debt is so large that they will not have
the opportunity to have an income similar to those who graduated with similar
credentials a generation previous, something unique in US history.

If we don't take steps to correct the situation, eventually only the upper 20%
will be able to afford higher education. Regardless of how we might feel about
government meddling, we all should be able to agree that it's anti-American to
make higher education a privilege only the wealthy can enjoy.

You point out that the rich have always had more influence in politics then
the poor, and this is obvious and has always been the case. By no means does
this make the Citizens United decision less important, I'd argue that this is
a tangential point. Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to
their voice then most of the US citizenry, wealthy or poor! In my opinion, the
upper 20% have much more to fear from corporate interests than the lower 80%.

~~~
smsm42
> I don't think you're going to make much progress convincing those suffering
> from oversized student loan debt that they are the expected "economic
> consequences" of a policy you believe to have been misguided

If they don't somehow get convinced of that, they will continue suffering, and
their children would be suffering even more, until some catastrophic event
forces the change of policy out of necessity. Or until some genius figures out
that if we nationalize the whole thing, we could hide the spending inside the
voluminous budgets nobody ever reads, and charge the same money now charged as
loan payments through taxes, and everybody would be so happy for their "free"
education.

> The poster to whom your responding points out that their loan debt is so
> large that they will not have the opportunity to have an income similar to
> those who graduated with similar credentials

If the price is too high, maybe it's time to stop buying and look for a
different solution? Instead of declaring upfront "our aim is for everybody to
buy X, no matter the price" and then acting surprised when the price of X is
shooting up?

> By no means does this make the Citizens United decision less important

Oh, CU decision is very important. It recognized that if you have right to
criticize Hillary Clinton privately, you also have right to criticize her
collectively, i.e. band together with similar-minded people and create an
organization dedicated to that goal. The alternative would be late-Soviet type
of political life - where you could say a lot of things while you are in your
own kitchen, but once you get out in public and try to make a difference, the
state would control what you can say and how you can say it. I agree, it is a
very important decision that confirmed citizens' right exist even if they
start become a nuisance to the powerful people, and not only when they are
inconsequential.

> Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to their voice then
> most of the US citizenry,

Corporations _are_ US citizenry (well, then can have foreign shareholders, but
it's largely insignificant given US economy size dominates the rest so much).
Who you think they are made of, Martians?

> Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to their voice then
> most of the US citizenry,

What are "corporate interests" and why should we fear them?

------
cabaalis
This article seems to be stretching to find reasons for its existence. I am
willing to accept that I may be blinded by my own income/position. But it
makes wild accusations and the backup feels very thin.

I also disagree that a "meritocracy" does not exist, at least in the IT world.
In my own life (anecdote, sure, but how many stories are similar?) I was
raised by a single father who made 20-30k a year. I'm now in the top 20% that
the article refers to, and seems to imply as very hard to do from the way I
was raised. This happened not due to luck or privilege, in my opinion. This
happened because I spend 12-16 hours a day in front of a computer screen, and
because I do what I tell people I will do.

My son will certainly have access to more than I had when I was a child. Maybe
I'm just an evil rich guy? The article seems to be prefer that I am.

~~~
charrondev
This article seems to posit that most people who are in this top quintile
haven't had to work incredibly hard for it, or that they have worked no harder
than anyone else. From what I've seen the responsibilities I have for my
salary are far greater and require a far greater amount of autonomy and
personal responsibility for my work than most people making 30k/year.

~~~
mgkimsal
> a far greater amount of autonomy and personal responsibility for my work
> than most people making 30k/year.

I see a lot of jobs at the ... $50k-$80k mark which have a lot of
responsibility but not much autonomy, and that's where I always have trouble
(that mismatch).

The folks I know in the $50k-$80k range seem to work (measured perhaps by
effort, stress and hours put in) at least as much as, often far more than,
folks earning $100k-$200k. I don't have enough connections at the $300k and
$30k ends to compare.

~~~
coldpie
Many of my friends are in the $30k area, so I can put in a data point for you
there. They work long hours, often on weekends, sometimes two part time jobs
or one full time job and a side gig. The thing that's hard is there is more
supply of unskilled workers than there is demand for them. If you don't put in
the time and put up with your shitty boss and coworkers, someone else will,
and now you're homeless because the US has no social safety structure. Coupled
with our abysmal minimum wage, this results in working 60 hour weeks to
acquire your barely-above-poverty wage. As someone with a very comfy job (hey,
I'm posting on HN right now), it enrages me to see people who work harder than
me paid less than half my salary. And I'm on the low end of the IT wage scale.

~~~
mgkimsal
Thanks. I perhaps should have said I don't have many folks on the $300k side
of things to compare against the $30k folks. I do know people in the $30k
area, and yeah... you're spot on. And... while a few I know are just sort of
'content'(?) where they're at, most I know are wanting to "get ahead" but seem
stuck - family/kids, long work hours... it's not _impossible_ to do more, but
often physically... almost impossible. Go back to school and take more classes
to hope to get a new degree in 2-3 years? With 3 little kids, two adults
working 4 jobs, 1 car which breaks down a lot... yeah, it gets hard to see any
easy way out of that.

I tell that scenario and get people saying "doesn't matter, get out there,
make it happen!" and... yeah - we all know some success stories who succeeded
against the odds, but... we all know someone like that because it's still
fairly remarkable in the first place.

------
lordnacho
Posh Brits are more likely to see that their position is at least in part the
result of good fortune.

This is true, and part of the reason I prefer the UK to the US. People can be
humorous about their status in the UK. I've got at least one friend, child of
a zillionaire, who quite causally jokes about how he'd never be able to afford
his lifestyle were it not for a judicious choice in parents. Class is so
constantly talked about in the UK that you can’t really avoid the most common
observations about it: it’s undeserved, and it’s hard to do anything about.

The other thing, which doesn't seem to be mentioned much in the article, is
race. It's a truly unpleasant thing about America that race is a thing. I'm
not psychologically scarred by it, in fact I thought it was somewhat funny,
but I remember going to a NYC comedy club and the comedian started joking
about me. "Why aren't you doing homework?". The point is race seems to be an
alternative kind of class in America, one you can never work yourself out of.
(And in that sense, class proper.) And because that’s there, everything else
can be fixed with hard work. Right?

The stuff about property prices causing gated communities is quite true in and
around London. Even a very highly paid banking job does not buy you much in
many parts of London, and private schools are not cheap either. However there
are council flats in just about every area of London; it may be unrealistic
that they end up socialising, but there is at least the physical chance that
children of the poor will run into the wealthy kids in Kensington.

His point about Oxbridge entrance is a positive for the UK; it is quite
unthinkable that an Oxbridge don will be forced into accepting some
unqualified kid. My tutor was clear that it was her and her alone who decided
who got into the four spaces she had. Maybe someone has a story about it, but
I find it unlikely that the swirl around Jared Kushner’s acceptance at Harvard
would occur in the two British universities.

~~~
pjc50
> I remember going to a NYC comedy club and the comedian started joking about
> me. "Why aren't you doing homework?"

I don't understand this at all?

~~~
freeflight
OP probably looks Asian and comedian thought it would be funny to make a play
at the whole "Asians are all super good at school" stereotype.

------
marcoperaza
As a counter example, I'd like to use the Cuban-American community in the US.
All of our families came to this country with little more than the clothes on
their backs, starting in the early 60s. Now, half a century later, Cuban-
Americans are doing as well for themselves as non-Hispanic white Americans,
with equally large proportions in the middle, upper middle, and upper classes.
My mom's father had a fourth grade education in Cuba and was a self-made
businessman who ran a country store in Cuba and a store-fixtures store in the
US. My dad's father was a middle class computer technician in Cuba, who came
to the US and was never able to work in his profession again. He worked two
jobs at first, sweeping floors and taking whatever other jobs came his way,
and eventually rose up to running a hospital department. My father never had
his own bedroom as a child. He got almost all of his schooling at very tough
(in the high-crime and high-apathy sense) NYC public schools in the 60s/70s.
There were no silver spoons in their mouths.

My parents have had successful careers, despite being dead broke in their 20s.
They were able to stress the importance of education and hard work to me. I
had a great job at Microsoft for two years, which I've now left to pursue a
career in law.

And this is more or less the same family story of countless Cuban-American
families. So I'm not buying this narrative of a calcified class structure
built on generational wealth. The most important thing you can do for your
children is not to be rich, but to be good. Values and virtues, not trust
funds and special treatment.

~~~
4c2383f5c88e911
Except for the fact that the first waves of Cuban-American migration were
almost exclusively made of the wealthy and middle-upper classes who were
profiting from the Batista dictatorship, therefore it's a bit disingenuous to
say that they came "with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the
early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but
it is still anecdotal."with little more than the clothes on their backs" in
the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized,
but it is still anecdotal.

~~~
marcoperaza
Yes, it was the middle and upper classes that came in that first wave. But
almost all of them did come with nothing, only small portions of the ultra
rich were able to sneak out any signicant amount of wealth. The Castro regime
did not allow you to take your worldly possessions with you. Bank accounts
were frozen, homes were inventoried, and bags were searched. But they all felt
lucky enough to escape with their lives and freedoms. And they did bring the
values and virtues that served them well in their previous lives.

I also reject your premise that all of these people were profiting directly
from the Batista dictatorship. There was corruption in Cuba, but there was
also capitalism.

~~~
Jill_the_Pill
>And they did bring the values and virtues that served them well in their
previous lives.

And the skills, education, and practical know-how: how to manage money, how to
start a business, how to get your kids a good education. And perhaps in some
cases the vices that had served them well: how to find a loophole, how to
trade favors, how to fudge the truth to your benefit.

In other words, the intangibles of privilege.

~~~
tpudlik
I think both you and the original commenter agree that the "intangibles" make
a significant (perhaps decisive) contribution to the heritability on outcomes.
But that's where you both disagree with the article, which argues for the
importance of "tangible" factors (growing up in a neighborhood with
exclusionary zoning; receiving an expensive college education; etc).

Like the OC, I've seen the dramatic impact of the "intangibles" in my own
homeland, a former Communist state. Many of the leading businessmen and
professionals today are descended from pre-communist elites, even though these
elites were not only deprived of all their material wealth but actively
discriminated upon during the five decades of communism (for example, by
receiving "class background" penalties for university admissions). The idea
that "money breeds money" is intuitively plausible, but turns out to be
largely an illusion.

~~~
Jill_the_Pill
Mmm maybe. Are those intangibles themselves sort of a shibboleth indicating
class membership? Could publicly funded education help transfer those "soft
skills" to poorer people or would there be class-protective resistance?

------
froindt
For anyone curious about how they are doing relative to others around their
age, here are two interesting calculators.

Income percentile by age: [https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-
calculator/](https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/)

Net worth percentile by age: [https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-
for-the-united...](https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-
united-states/)

------
netsharc
Meritocracy is an interesting "religion", which we unconsciously believe in,
and one can probably argue is the basis of the Republican ideology. "You're
poor? That must mean you're lazy!"

I find Alain de Botton's essays enlightening, here's a 2+ hour documentary
about it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g)
, and a 4 minute summary:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM)

------
jasode
_> The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously self-
serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince
themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary
Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for
inequality. [...] The strong whiff of entitlement coming from the top 20
percent has not been lost on everyone else._

Ok, since it's not clear from the title, Richard V. Reeves is directing his
tirade towards people making $100k+ and not the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts
of the USA.

Since many HN readers earn $100k+, let's ask ourselves:

Do you feel "rich"? Richard Reeves is calling you out as the class of the
"rich" and to stop denying it. You agree?

Do programmers and sysadmins feel like getting the job and six-figure salary
was from luck or the result of a rigged system? (Attending the 4-year college,
whiteboard interviews, etc, was "rigged" in your favor.)

If you want to live in a neighborhood that prevents disassembled cars jacked
up on cinder blocks, it doesn't really mean you want a nice-looking
environment. Instead, you're just using the rules as a smoke screen to keep
out low-income blacks and Latinos. You agree?

If you take advantage of 529 deductions for your kids' education and mortgage
deductions, these are financial games to keep the low-income people from
achieving what you've accomplished.

Richard Reeves says you should feel guilty? Do you feel guilty?

EDIT ADD: Since none of the replies (so far) directly engage with what I was
trying to ask, I'll try to pose the question more directly: Do HN readers
agree with Mr Reeves that _you_ are to be blamed for the low-income people not
moving up the ladder?

~~~
Quarrelsome
Consider my friend who did as he was told but sadly in his case that was to
become one of the very best dancers in his time. Dancing doesn't pay. He now
works 10 hour shifts as a Chef and just about gets by to provide for his
family. Conversely I put an equal amount of effort in teaching myself how to
code and can pull in over four times the salary he earns with slightly less
effort and when I get home my body doesn't feel fatigued. So "hahahahaha", he
chose wrong and I chose right? Right? I was just lucky that the money
coincided with my interest in tech.

Damn straight I feel guilty and what makes me mad is when people claim its
about effort and hard work. Sure that's definitely part of the equasion but
you can work twice as hard and put in twice as much effort and it doesn't mean
a damn if you didn't back the "right" industry horse. Save a thought for those
that chose different yet still totally as valid fields like nursing or
teaching and appreciate the benefit that tech has "unfairly" brought you. Next
time you're up late and working super hard just remember you're not literally
cleaning up shit and piss for 1/4 of the money.

~~~
pc86
> _it doesn 't mean a damn if you didn't back the "right" industry horse_

Was your friend bamboozled into thinking that he could earn $250k/yr as a
dancer? Teaching is one thing - I think most people would like to pay (good)
teachers more. Nurses are capable of making quite a bit of money between base
salary and overtime, especially at higher levels of education and
specialization. Despite what the folks writing VC-funded CRUD apps here would
like to think, programming probably has one of the lowest effort-to-payroll
ratios around. _Most_ people work harder than us for less money. Part of
that's luck but part of it is the market. And part of it _is_ hard work,
effort, and hustle.

I've worked sanitation jobs before. They suck. They pay next to nothing. But
they also _require_ next to nothing aside from the willingness to do the work.
They may pay "1/4 of the money" but they require much less than 1/4 of the
skill, education, or experience.

~~~
justin66
> I think most people would like to pay (good) teachers more

In that case you're entirely unfamiliar with American conservative rhetoric
and policy.

~~~
pc86
As an American conservative I would think I'm somewhat familiar with it. I'd
love to pay good teachers more. I'd love to fire the bad ones. I'd love for
good teachers to be able to earn more than bad ones, even if the good teachers
have been there for less time! Imagine the horror of suggesting to a state
teacher's union that someone there 10 years should make more money than
someone there for 15.

------
rogy
Not sure how much I agree with the sentiment of this article as a relating
class seemingly directly with salary.

In the UK its fairly well considered now that a working class 50 year old
thats worked at UK average pay for the majority of their life, generally, has
better standard of living than the 30 year old on 100k. The appreciation of
housing and the current cost of things they got for free seem to matter far
more than the salary you currently earn.

------
HalcyonicStorm
A factor to consider is that vast majority of people still need to work to
survive. There are very few people who can live off their investments.

~~~
StavrosK
Hmm, I'm missing your point. Are you saying that the definition of "rich" is
"can live off their investments"? I would disagree with that.

~~~
ryanackley
I'm guessing his point is your lifestyle changes very little between the
bottom and the top of the middle class. You have four walls and a roof over
your head. Have home internet. Eat out a few times a week. Have a smart phone,
etc.

You still have to go to work every day like everyone else to sustain this
lifestyle. You just have nicer "things" and "fancier" experiences?

~~~
StavrosK
That argument is extremely broad, though. It's easy to live off your
investments if you live in a hovel, eat ramen every day and never go out. Is
that classified as rich?

Sure, it's a continuum, but "not having to live hand-to-mouth" is a hell of a
lot closer to rich than to poor.

------
lotsofpulp
It's simply a matter of definition, and the most useful one will depend on the
discussion being had. You could say rich is above certain income, certain
wealth, etc. I would think this is most appropriate for discussions about
income and wealth inequality.

However, if we're talking about state of mind, then rich can be how secure one
feels in their lifestyle. If all your family and friends are
doctors/lawyers/business and owners/engineers and everyone is making $200k+,
then making $100k won't feel rich. You won't be able to engage in many of the
activities they can. You might also not feel rich if your income isn't secure,
there is working rich and then wealthy, where you can make a few hundred
thousand from investments and don't have to worry about getting sick or taking
sabbaticals.

~~~
harryh
However, if we're talking about state of mind, then rich can be how secure one
feels in their lifestyle. If all your family and friends are hedge fund
managers/CEOs/famous athletes and everyone is worth 50M+, then having a mere
10M won't feel rich. You won't be able to engage in many of the activities
they can. You might also not feel rich if your wealth isn't secure, there is
wealthy and then truly high net worth, where you can make so much off the
interest that you can afford multiple houses and a private jet.

If "state of mind" is your standard then almost anyone can tell a story about
how they aren't really rich. And this isn't just me screwing around. There is
a bunch of research about how the vast majority of people, no matter their
financial situation, don't quite feel rich because they can always see "the
next level up."

Perhaps we should be using a better standard than "state of mind."

------
pdog
_> So imagine my horror at discovering that the United States is more
calcified by class than Britain, especially toward the top. The American myth
of meritocracy allows people on the highest rung to attribute their position
to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system._

Conspicuously missing from this op-ed is the experience of millions of
immigrant families who came to the United States and worked hard to make it
into the top 20%. Many started with practically nothing. Did they all benefit
from pure luck? Did they move to the U.S. to take advantage of a rigged
system?

This seems to blow quite a big hole in the author's specious argument.

------
Taek
I've always defined rich by whether or not you need to work to maintain your
desired lifestyle. If your desired lifestyle has you spending $30k / yr, rich
means you have about $750k saved up. If your lifestyle would put you at $100k
/ yr in spending, you'll need $2.5m saved up.

Rich is as much about being able to manage your finances well as it is about
how much money you make. If you are living from paycheck to paycheck, it
doesn't matter whether your monthly check is $1500 or $10,000. If you're bad
with money, you aren't rich.

~~~
zyx321
So if you're a CEO who collects sports cars, you're not rich because you still
need to work because you couldn't retire without selling one of your five
vacation homes?

------
crispyambulance
It was an interesting piece but now I am interested in how sensitive the Brits
are to accent. Can someone point to an example of upper class speech vs lower
class speech and stuff in-between?

Accent very much colors perceptions in America as well. There are "redneck"
and "urban" accents that would absolutely be a devastating red-flag in many
job interview situations.

------
peteretep

        > Posh Brits are more likely
        > to see that their position
        > is at least in part the 
        > result of good fortune
    

Quite, although it did take a millennium-long detour through the divine rights
of royalty and so on

------
candiodari
> So imagine my horror at discovering that the United States is more calcified
> by class than Britain, especially toward the top. The big difference is that
> most of the people on the highest rung in America are in denial about their
> privilege. The American myth of meritocracy allows them to attribute their
> position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged
> system. At least posh people in England have the decency to feel guilty.

Heh, riiiiiight. They feel guilty.

Color me skeptical.

------
neom
I cannot stress enough how excellent this book is. It's quite sad, but stirred
something in me that I've not been able to quell since reading it.

$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America:
[https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-
America/dp/05...](https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-
America/dp/054481195X)

------
TheCondor
these upper middle class people (we) are the work horses of the tax system,
right? Not rich enough to stop working, too rich for sympathy.

~~~
harryh
No, not really. The top 1% pay nearly half the income taxes.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
(...and take in 99% of the income. Why not 99% of the income tax? Clearly at
50%, the system is massively out of balance in their favor.)

~~~
harryh
That is incorrect. The top 1% earn about 20% of the income in the US.

They pay about 40% of the income taxes (I went and looked this up after your
comment. "Nearly half" was perhaps slightly overstating the case).

Given that we have a progressive tax system it makes intuitive sense that the
higher percentiles (1%, 5%, 10%, whatever) will always pay a greater
percentage of total income tax than they make in total income.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ah! I was wrong; I was thinking 'net worth' not income. And the net worth of
the top 1% is around 35% of the total national wealth. (Which is curiously
close to the income tax number of 40%)

~~~
harryh
Ah, yes. Stock vs flow!

I noticed that curiosity as well. Not sure it means anything in particular but
it was interesting.

------
callumlocke
Why was this flagged?

------
gkanapathy
From the article:

> Most of the children born into households in the top 20 percent will stay
> there or drop only as far as the next quintile.

And rewritten a bit, it sounds rather weak:

> More than 50 percent of the children born into households in the top 20
> percent will stay in the top 40 percent.

------
jlebrech
pretending you're not rich is called SAVING UP

------
korrachs
I was wondering how long it would take for the attack on the solidarity of the
precariat:

>The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously self-
serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince
themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary
Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for
inequality.

7 months after the election is actually quite long.

Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on
the other end of town the same:

>Your home is regarded as a model home, your life as a model life. But all
this splendor, and you along with it... it's just as though it were built upon
a shifting quagmire. A moment may come, a word can be spoken, and both you and
all this splendor will collapse.

The rich cannot be ruined. I can. If I was to be fired from my job it would be
a minor disaster, if I was to get an incurable disease I would slide down the
income scale without a break.

I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare
state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown
time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone
to have the luxury of stability.

That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one.

~~~
taneq
That doesn't mean you're not rich, that just means that you're spending your
income on immediate comfort and flashy toys rather than security. If you lived
further within your means and invested the difference wisely, within a year or
two you would have far more security than the $30k household will ever have.

~~~
vacri
> _within a year or two you would have far more security than the $30k
> household will ever have._

Within a year or two? I think you mean "after your first paycheck". The
ability to have a grand or two 'cushion' money in the bank is an incredible
difference between the haves and have-nots. And I don't mean "money in my day-
to-day account", I mean emergency money of any kind.

It's bizarre that a 300k/yr household can even contemplate being similar to a
30k/yr one.

~~~
geggam
Depends on where you live. 30k in the Midwest compared to 300K in San
Francisco is actually not too far apart.

2 Beds 1 Bath -- 650 Jackson MO or 7800 a year or 25% of the income gross

$4940 - $5160 /mo 2 beds / 2 bath 979 sqft say 5000 a month or 60000 a year or
20% of the income

add the huge differences in effective tax rate of CA to MO combined with the
jump in federal tax rates and it is arguable that 30k in MO would actually be
better off

~~~
mindways
...even if we take this not-quite-equivalence at face value (note: 650 < 979
and 20% < 25%), most life expenses don't scale linearly with housing values -
not even close.

Groceries may be more expensive in the big city, but not 10x more expensive.
You're not paying 10x more for a car, or a plane flight. And insurance
premiums / deductibles sure aren't 10x cheaper in a less expensive part of the
country.

Plus, the "$300K in expensive place" household has the option of moving to the
less expensive place. The reverse is hardly true.

> it is arguable that 30k in MO would actually be better off

1\. No. 2\. Even if we were to accept that $30K in one place went just as far
as $300K in another, "better off" ignores that higher property costs are
likely to indicate a more desirable place to live. (For whatever reason:
access to jobs, lower crime rates, pleasant to live in, what-have-you.)

------
surrey-fringe
Don't tell me what to do

------
whatok
Stop Pretending You're Not Waging Class Warfare.

------
Shivetya
I do find it odd that this writer and many think you have to have 200k incomes
to be rich. That is a lie. If you are in the high eighties, let alone over one
hundred thousand, you are doing damn well and rich by most accounts.

Gated communities evolved out of limited access high rises. there is no real
difference other than one has a lawn. it is the same idea. zoning laws are
just horrid in most cities and they tend to be disguised with well meaning
names to keep people from challenging them; first trying protecting of
historical interest, then trying the environment foil, and finally
insufficient infrastructure purposefully kept that way.

For the majority of us here we are rich. Politicians are the real one percent,
did any party have someone running for President who wasn't very well off?
Actually that would have been two of the Republican candidates had 100k or
lower, even the left's favorite is worth near a million and has three homes.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Yup, 80-100K is double the median, and 4X poor. It sure doesn't feel like very
much when you're struggling to pay bills, imagine trying to live on half or a
quarter of that...

