How much do I need to earn per yr to be considered millennial one-percenter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many out of touch posters in this thread.

http://fusion.net/story/41833/wealth-gap-calculator-are-you-in-the-millennial-one-percent/

106k. That's it.

That's bullshit because it's counting 18-23yo, who are still undergrads, and even 18-25yo who are still in law or graduate school. I'd be more interested is a study that isolates 27-34yo. If I had to guess, it's probably more like 136k.

You don't realize how stupid you sound. The word "millenial" doesn't have an asterisk beside it knocking out college students. The OP didn't ask for "a study that isolates 27-34yo"; the OP asked for the 1% threshold for millenials. Your question is not the OP's question, which makes your bullshit...just that.

Why would you include a massive cohort of students in a one-percenter estimate? Use your head.

Millennial one-percenter, excluding undergrads, grad and professional school students, is probably in the 130K-140K range. Big law associates, newly practicing MDs, tech engineers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top 1% of income is quite quite different from top 1% of wealth. To be in the wealthiest 1%, you need assets of more that 8.4 million. Superwealthy folks in this bracket own around a third of the US financial assests (wildly disproportionate to their share of the population).

The world's eight wealthiest people own the same amount of wealth as half of the human population.

These are the true measures of income inequality. A 30 yo earning +100K is upper middle class.

Nah. A household earning 100k is already richer than 76% of households in the country. An individual earning that much is not middle class except in his or her head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As in, amongst my 28-32 yo peers.

If you have to ask, you're already nowhere close. Also, the millennial age range is far wider than what you've presented here.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many out of touch posters in this thread.

http://fusion.net/story/41833/wealth-gap-calculator-are-you-in-the-millennial-one-percent/

106k. That's it.

That's bullshit because it's counting 18-23yo, who are still undergrads, and even 18-25yo who are still in law or graduate school. I'd be more interested is a study that isolates 27-34yo. If I had to guess, it's probably more like 136k.

You don't realize how stupid you sound. The word "millenial" doesn't have an asterisk beside it knocking out college students. The OP didn't ask for "a study that isolates 27-34yo"; the OP asked for the 1% threshold for millenials. Your question is not the OP's question, which makes your bullshit...just that.

Why would you include a massive cohort of students in a one-percenter estimate? Use your head.

Millennial one-percenter, excluding undergrads, grad and professional school students, is probably in the 130K-140K range. Big law associates, newly practicing MDs, tech engineers.

Because that's included, by definition, in the word "millenial." Trying to redefine words to exclude random people is kind of crazy. Similarly, if this thread were about the 1% senior crowd, it would be nonsensical to try to say only seniors who were retired counted in effort to filter out people who were still working. That isn't how words work. If the OP had asked for 1%ers between a certain age range who were fully employed, then yes, ignoring students would work. Otherwise, it's answering a question the OP didn't ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 1% of income is quite quite different from top 1% of wealth. To be in the wealthiest 1%, you need assets of more that 8.4 million. Superwealthy folks in this bracket own around a third of the US financial assests (wildly disproportionate to their share of the population).

The world's eight wealthiest people own the same amount of wealth as half of the human population.

These are the true measures of income inequality. A 30 yo earning +100K is upper middle class.

Nah. A household earning 100k is already richer than 76% of households in the country. An individual earning that much is not middle class except in his or her head.

They are absolutely still middle class. You don't start getting into the true upper class until you get into the top 3% range (or around there)

And it's always been that way. Class has never been divided into equal thirds. It's always been that the upper class occupies a tiny group or percentage of the population

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 1% of income is quite quite different from top 1% of wealth. To be in the wealthiest 1%, you need assets of more that 8.4 million. Superwealthy folks in this bracket own around a third of the US financial assests (wildly disproportionate to their share of the population).

The world's eight wealthiest people own the same amount of wealth as half of the human population.

These are the true measures of income inequality. A 30 yo earning +100K is upper middle class.

Nah. A household earning 100k is already richer than 76% of households in the country. An individual earning that much is not middle class except in his or her head.

They are absolutely still middle class. You don't start getting into the true upper class until you get into the top 3% range (or around there)

And it's always been that way. Class has never been divided into equal thirds. It's always been that the upper class occupies a tiny group or percentage of the population

This is untrue. Classes are frequently divided into thirds or quintiles. Sociologists and economists disagree over where exactly the boundaries are, but it's undeniable that household income thirds are one of the more common methods used to describe class boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 1% of income is quite quite different from top 1% of wealth. To be in the wealthiest 1%, you need assets of more that 8.4 million. Superwealthy folks in this bracket own around a third of the US financial assests (wildly disproportionate to their share of the population).

The world's eight wealthiest people own the same amount of wealth as half of the human population.

These are the true measures of income inequality. A 30 yo earning +100K is upper middle class.

Nah. A household earning 100k is already richer than 76% of households in the country. An individual earning that much is not middle class except in his or her head.

They are absolutely still middle class. You don't start getting into the true upper class until you get into the top 3% range (or around there)

And it's always been that way. Class has never been divided into equal thirds. It's always been that the upper class occupies a tiny group or percentage of the population

+1

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind, also, that the statistics on income for millennials is NO indication of wealth. 1% millennials are going to include kids who have inherited millions or live off trust funds- and there are many more of them than you might realize. It also includes the ones who've hit it big off apps or tech, and might not even make a yearly salary anymore.

So... 1% of millennials are probably the ones posing on yachts on instagram each week, as much as that may annoy you OP. Not the ones stuck in the office making $100 k yearly

[Anonymous]

Upper-middle-class workers typically have post-graduate degrees and work at high-level, white-collar positions. Household income for these workers is often above $100,000. According to the Census bureau, upper-middle-class, or professional class workers, earn enough to be in the top one-third of American incomes.

The next income level is what is commonly called the "5 percent," or the percentage of Americans who make more than $150,000 annually. At the top of the economic ladder is the so-called "1 percent," or households that earn more than $250,000 annually.

These are HHI figures. If your HHI is 100-149k, then yes, it falls into the UMC region. If you're pulling in those figures on your own, however, then you're no longer UMC; you're just UC. You don't need to be in the top 1% to be in the UC.

http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2012/09/13/where-do-you-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system

[Anonymous]

Remember, folks: being in the top 1% doesn't mean you get your own yacht, mansion, and everything else you see on TV. It just means you make more than 99% of individuals (or households, depending on what you're looking at) in the country.

[Anonymous]

From the article above...

"It takes a long time for people to change their view of what class they're in," Gordon says. "That's especially true since the current definition of middle class is so broad that it excludes only the top 1 or 2 percent and the bottom 10 or 20 percent."

Gordon says popular culture also limits understanding of class, reinforcing the idea that all people are in the middle.

This is also a huge part of the confusion. The rich have a vested interest in portraying themselves as not-rich in the US, as part of our national monomyth prizes equal opportunity (despite lower social mobility in the US than in Europe). As a result, most rich people describe themselves as middle class or UMC, even when a simple consultation of income percentiles would reveal this to be rubbish. People who make more than 97% of other Americans (i.e., the 270k HHI threshold and up) are not "middle class", but they self-describe as such for the socially protective label. Because most Americans have no idea of where income percentiles actually stand, most Americans believe them.

[Anonymous]

^ I've seen people with 650k HHIs in the money / finances subforum describing themselves as "upper middle class." The middle-class-posturing is very real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember, folks: being in the top 1% doesn't mean you get your own yacht, mansion, and everything else you see on TV. It just means you make more than 99% of individuals (or households, depending on what you're looking at) in the country.

Nope. Most people think of "the 1%" as having to do with total net wealth, not yearly earnings. Sorry dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember, folks: being in the top 1% doesn't mean you get your own yacht, mansion, and everything else you see on TV. It just means you make more than 99% of individuals (or households, depending on what you're looking at) in the country.

Nope. Most people think of "the 1%" as having to do with total net wealth, not yearly earnings. Sorry dude.

Even a simple Google search would show you how wrong you are. Just try searching for "definition of top 1%". Here's the first article that comes up:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/29/news/economy/top-1-income/

It took just under $429,000 to make into this elite group in 2013, according to the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service. A year earlier, Americans had to have about $435,000 in adjusted gross income to be part of the Top 1%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember, folks: being in the top 1% doesn't mean you get your own yacht, mansion, and everything else you see on TV. It just means you make more than 99% of individuals (or households, depending on what you're looking at) in the country.

Nope. Most people think of "the 1%" as having to do with total net wealth, not yearly earnings. Sorry dude.

LOL. Just because you're too stupid to use Google doesn't mean anyone else is. When human beings talk about the top 1%, we're talking about income. When wealth is mentioned, it's in addition to or in contrast to income, but the income definition is the one you'll find used on planet Earth.