How much money you need to be part of the 1 percent worldwide

a reply to: Puppylove

I wouldn't worry to much about him.

Its blatantly clear from his posts that he just gets by from playing the system... If he was ever forced to actually earn his worth by doing a hard days labour, he would obviously just go to pieces.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

originally posted by: Edumakated

I don't have time to find it, but I saw a study showing how the bottom 1% in America have a standard of living higher than the top 5% in India.

People have lost perspective.

Gotta call BS on that. I have seen with my own eyes how the bottom 1% live, and I find it hard to believe that the top 5% in India live lower than that. I would like like to know who printed that information.

But it's good to know that I'm in the top 1%........make that the top .5%.........of earners in the world.

I always knew I was better than the vast majority, and now I have proof. /sarcasm LOL

How Americans Compare Globally

Here is a quote since you are too lazy to use Google...

"The U.S. stands head and shoulders above the rest of the world. More than half (56%) of Americans were high income by the global standard, living on more than $50 per day in 2011, the latest year that could be analyzed with the available data. Another 32% were upper-middle income. In other words, almost nine-in-ten Americans had a standard of living that was above the global middle-income standard. Only 7% of people in the U.S. were middle income, 3% were low income and 2% were poor."

Here is a video too that can help you understand standard of living in the US....

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

Good to know I'm a loser since I make 10 dollars an hour taking care of the elderly as a home health aide. A job with not enough people doing it. I should quit and get a higher paying job. # the elderly they don't deserve help since the job pays #.

You aren't a loser.... but to my point, it is a choice that you've made to earn $10/hr.

a reply to: Edumakated

One many people need to make or society falls apart. There's lots of important jobs that need to be filled that simply don't pay a lot.

Besides the notion there are enough jobs paying 16 dollars an hour or enough opportunity for successful new businesses to succeed to cover every adult in the US is absolutely absurd. Calling any adult that doesn't make 16 dollars an hour in the US a loser is absurd because it's literally impossible currently as that many 16+ dollar per hour jobs simply do not exist.

a reply to: Athetos


No, it's all completely inaccurate.. That money annually would get you in the upper middle class. That's not even a mil a year.

The one percenters are Bezo, Rockerfellers, Rothschilds, Bill Gates, Duponts, and those with massive money.

It takes billions of dollars to be in the 1%. These people are kidding themselves.

800,000 a year might get you in the one percent in your town or state though.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Athetos


No, it's all completely inaccurate.. That money annually would get you in the upper middle class. That's not even a mil a year.

The one percenters are Bezo, Rockerfellers, Rothschilds, Bill Gates, Duponts, and those with massive money.

It takes billions of dollars to be in the 1%. These people are kidding themselves.

800,000 a year might get you in the one percent in your town or state though.

Those guys are the top .001% of the 1%.

The whole 1% meme is grossly inaccurate as the spread of wealth from the bottom of the 1% to the top is so vast....

I've been a1% income wise... only need to make about $400k to be a 1% income wise in the US. However, I get lumped in with people who also make say $100 million. Both of us are 1%er, but I have way more in common with with a family making say $150k/yr than anyone making $100 million or even $5 million.

It is kind of like this. If you are say 6'5 in height you are probably taller than 99% of the population. However, it does not make you a pro basketball player which are such an infinitesimally small amount of people even though technically you both may be part of the 1% in height.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

That requires roughly 16 dollars an hour at 40 hours a week. I call bull# on that being such an easily attainable wage even in the US. Most people make peanuts compared to that in most of the jobs in the US.

There are fast food joints paying $15/hr in some areas. In many cities, $10/hr is minimum wage. The point is even low wage American workers make more than 99% of people in the world.

If you are an adult and not making $15/hr, you are a loser in life. Yes, this is an insensitive statement, but a factual one.

What relevance does making more have if Abu from India and Joe from the US spend the same ratio for cost of living and both are broke afterwards?




I think a better indicator would be how much is left after basic expenses are met.

Joe has a much higher standard of living. Again, even our poor in America live better than the upper class in most of the world. The point is just being on American soil even if you are in the bottom 1% of earners still makes you part of the global 1 or 2%.

A cursory look at homelesss encampments tells a different story.
Poop, piss and trash all over the place. I have had foriegn tourists come up to telling me they thought they were in India or some third world country.

Drug addicts camped out in parks are not the demographic being discussed...

You hear this same excuse in other countries though by the wealthy.
When it is other countries, we say it is their system that is the problem.
When it is in our country, we say it is the homeless people that is the problem.

Likewise, the countries that are better off for everyone, say the inequality and poor in our country is because of our system...

A allot and if they want to rest their money in my bank account its always an open door.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

One many people need to make or society falls apart. There's lots of important jobs that need to be filled that simply don't pay a lot.

Besides the notion there are enough jobs paying 16 dollars an hour or enough opportunity for successful new businesses to succeed to cover every adult in the US is absolutely absurd. Calling any adult that doesn't make 16 dollars an hour in the US a loser is absurd because it's literally impossible currently as that many 16+ dollar per hour jobs simply do not exist.

You are a good example that shows what is wrong with America's priorities. The jobs that are the most important to people, health care workers, teachers, social workers, etc..... are the jobs that don't pay much. Whereas high-tech jobs and white collar jobs pay the most.

What you do helps everyday average Americans get by. Teachers help mold the future. Social workers give people hope that tomorrow will be better than today. High tech workers help keep computers advancing. Computuers that hold social media venue's that many say are the bane of our society. Computers that many say distract you from real life. These people make 6 figures. These people do more than the 30k a year crowd to keep the financial wheels turning in America, therefore, they are more important.

If we paid the people who keep the human psyche and human intelligence going and growing as much as we pay high tech workers, you would see a much better functioning society where people are more on an equal level with each other without the back-biting and fierce competitions with each other.

So all these studies that show who makes what and where they make it and how they correlate with each other so as to show us exactly the number that makes a 1%'er a 1%'er, they're flawed simply by virtue of the way those incomes are made.

Those studies are meant to show who the important people are. We all know who the really important people in this world are, and they are not the financial 1%'ers. They are people like you, Puppylove, who give others less fortunate on an emotional and educational level, a better day.

originally posted by: Edumakated
It is harsh, but also factual...

There is no reason anyone should be stuck making $15/hr beyond poor life decisions and choices (or if you are special needs or elderly). If you work hard and have some hustle, you should have progressed beyond that after a few years at most.

I was making more than that as a teen cutting lawns growing up 30 years ago. Literally walking up and down my block with a Snapper lawnmower and a gallon of gas.

That depends heavily on where you live. You're right for people living in cities, but in all the rural areas in the US? Not so much. In the town I live in, median household income is $27k, median individual income is 16,200 which is only $7.78/hour.

a reply to: Edumakated

In order for people to get the care they need (and most aren't as there aren't enough of us to provide that care) there needs to be people to make that choice otherwise no one gets that care.

Does that sound right to you? Cause that's ultimately the world you're defending as fair, right and good.

Yes I make the choice to do a job that pays less because I care enough to make that sacrifice to help those who need it. I don't think that should be a necessary sacrifice though, especially when it results in fewer people doing a job so needed and in demand.

a reply to: Puppylove

But you would do much more good if you invented machines that could automate away labor intensive care.

a reply to: Aazadan

Lol good luck programming a machine to deal with people with dementia and other ailments that lead to erratic emotional behavior and require emotional understanding and the ability to adapt to such needs.

I'm in one of the few fields you're going to have one hell of a time automating us out of.

Now coming up with a way to cure or prevent it that is actually affordable enough to actually be available to those that need it might be more reasonable a suggestion.

To get that though we need to do something about insurance corruption and big pharma.

Also those people need care NOW. Are you honestly suggesting everyone in home health care should quit and leave all the elderly with no care to instead go into robotics to try and make robo caregivers in who ever knows how long that will take time if even possible?

It honestly makes me sick how quick people act like doing the jobs that need to be filled now is a BAD thing and that choosing to do so, means you don't deserve to earn more as if those jobs are actually an optional need in society. Many people get paid jack # to do things that would cause society to crumble if they didn't, and you act like everyone who does those jobs can and should just quit and go do something else if they want to better themselves. Well # that mentality, everyone who contributes to the well being of society deserves to be treated with respect and a decent standard of living by that society.

a reply to: Puppylove

Sure, living wages are great. Everyone should have one, but if you're talking about enjoying your work because of the impact of that work... doesn't it make sense to try and find ways to make those jobs higher impact that way more people can be made comfortable?

a reply to: Aazadan

Not everyone is technical or science minded, besides it still does not change that people need help now. Like I said, not enough people are getting the help they need already. I'm not about to abandon them to go on some wild goose chase that may or may not go anywhere. Especially when I've never once showed any aptitude for robotics or any talent with the sciences.

People like you are silly. You forget people need help now, and demand people perform miracles instead of providing that help.

Sure it would be great if I could discover some miracle cure to Alzheimers, or Parkinsons, or if I could find some way to split into ten of me to provide care to more people. I, however, live in the real world where people need help now, today, not in some hypothetical future, and any person who is helped today is worth helping today. I'm not going to let you attempt to diminish the impact on every one life I make better day by day, by pretending it would be better I abandon them to chase a white rabbit.

Also there's a part of my job you're missing with your desire to automate #. Part of our care is simply being there as a companion. Many of these people have very little contact with others. Sure getting them dinner, cleaning their house, helping them bathe and taking care of their catheters and bathroom needs, as well as monitoring their health are all good, but we also provide a person for them to talk to and have contact with. For many of them, we're their main contact with other people. You roboticize this industry and you take that much needed thing away from them.

This is a stupid and skewed argument. Net worth doesn't mean squat outside of your own area. For f's sake, my net worth in MI wouldn't get me s# in NYC or San Francisco, what's left AFTER you pay the rent/mortgage, utilities and purchase food in your area matters most for comparative purposes -- the percentage, not the total dollar amount. And whether or not you can even meet all of those obligations in the first place.

CoL is a damn good domestic indicator for bang for your buck, so why ignore each country's CoL internationally? The same income and basics pricing here does not translate to the same income for the same job and basics in Bangladesh and vice versa, now does it?

So why ignore it? Because it doesn't support the narrative of everyone being on equal 1% footing, that's why.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

Good to know I'm a loser since I make 10 dollars an hour taking care of the elderly as a home health aide. A job with not enough people doing it. I should quit and get a higher paying job. # the elderly they don't deserve help since the job pays #.

You aren't a loser.... but to my point, it is a choice that you've made to earn $10/hr.

Ah, I can see how this is going to go for you in your Home Years.

"Nurse Jenny! You certainly do not deserve better pay for taking care of my geriatric ass. You should have applied yourself, you lazy young whippersnapper. Now, wipe my ass, please."

originally posted by: Nyiah
This is a stupid and skewed argument. Net worth doesn't mean squat outside of your own area. For f's sake, my net worth in MI wouldn't get me s# in NYC or San Francisco, what's left AFTER you pay the rent/mortgage, utilities and purchase food in your area matters most for comparative purposes -- the percentage, not the total dollar amount. And whether or not you can even meet all of those obligations in the first place.

CoL is a damn good domestic indicator for bang for your buck, so why ignore each country's CoL internationally? The same income and basics pricing here does not translate to the same income for the same job and basics in Bangladesh and vice versa, now does it?

So why ignore it? Because it doesn't support the narrative of everyone being on equal 1% footing, that's why.

Exactly.
That 35,000 dollars a year would make you wealthy in India but it does you no good here in the USA where everything cost more.

Cost of living needs be factored in as well.

You can live in the ghetto in LA with shack worth 300,000 and the surroundings resembling the third world, that does not make you better off than Chico living in a shack in one of Brazils slums.

a reply to: Puppylove

Yes, but you were complaining about wages. The fewer people you see, the more each individual needs to pay. By coming up with ways to increase productivity, you can see more people. Lets put some numbers on this, at $10/hour if someone hires you they're paying at minimum $21,000/year for care in addition to all their other living expenses. How many people can afford that? If you can increase productivity such that you can now see 4 people per day, each person only needs $5250 now. It saves them $15,000/year. You can charge an additional $2000/year per person, raising your pay from $21k to $29k while still saving them $13,000.

This is what I'm getting at when I talk about impact. There is very little low impact work that is highly paid simply because only the very wealthy can afford such services. It is much better to be paid 10 cents an hour from 10,000 people than to be paid 100 an hour from 1 person.