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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
Posh Brits are more likely to see that their position is at least in part the result of good fortune.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
For anyone curious about how they are doing relative to others around their age, here are two interesting calculators.<p>Income percentile by age: <a href="https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/" rel="nofollow">https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/</a><p>Net worth percentile by age: <a href="https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-united-states/" rel="nofollow">https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-united...</a>
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!"<p>I find Alain de Botton's essays enlightening, here's a 2+ hour documentary about it: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g</a> , and a 4 minute summary: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM</a>
<i>>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.</i><p>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.<p>Since many HN readers earn $100k+, let's ask ourselves:<p>Do you feel "rich"? Richard Reeves is calling you out as the class of the "rich" and to stop denying it. You agree?<p>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.)<p>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?<p>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.<p>Richard Reeves says you should feel guilty? Do you feel guilty?<p>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?
Not sure how much I agree with the sentiment of this article as a relating class seemingly directly with salary.<p>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.
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.<p>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.
<i>> 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.</i><p>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?<p>This seems to blow quite a big hole in the author's specious argument.
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.<p>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.
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?<p>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.
<p><pre><code> > Posh Brits are more likely
> to see that their position
> is at least in part the
> result of good fortune
</code></pre>
Quite, although it did take a millennium-long detour through the divine rights of royalty and so on
> 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.<p>Heh, riiiiiight. They feel guilty.<p>Color me skeptical.
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.<p>$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-America/dp/054481195X" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-America/dp/05...</a>
From the article:<p>> Most of the children born into households in the top 20 percent will stay there or drop only as far as the next quintile.<p>And rewritten a bit, it sounds rather weak:<p>> More than 50 percent of the children born into households in the top 20 percent will stay in the top 40 percent.
I was wondering how long it would take for the attack on the solidarity of the precariat:<p>>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.<p>7 months after the election is actually quite long.<p>Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on the other end of town the same:<p>>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one.
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.<p>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.<p>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.