People reading this on HN are probably already in the top 20% of earners, or close enough. As such, they are likely better off in the US.
Edit: actually, based off a quick Google search, it seems that if you earn 150k, you are in fact in the top 5%
Edit: actually, based off a quick Google search, it seems that if you earn 150k, you are in fact in the top 5%
Hackernews is not as small as you think
Developing countries main characteristic is the huge disparity between the haves and have-nots, which of course, leads to emigration and crime among other issues. Countries with a large middle class therefore are relatively better off.
In any case, making $4000 per month or more is what'll get you royalty style living in those countries.
I'm pretty sure he's in the top 5% :)
http://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/pakistan
It would be a decent salary for many countries in Europe.
The per capita income in Pakistan is $1,600 a year. You are making 12X the average salary.
Your $19,200 salary, when adjusted for purchasing power (about a 3-4X purchasing power multiplier) and you're effective PPP income is $60-80K.
And honestly that puts you in the exact same category as the rest of us with respect of this article: upper middle class engineers who are generally working to make others rich.
This article mentions the vast majority of 1% individuals are bc of working in finance.
This extends into the tech world where the vast majority of equity goes to investors. Thus, even our efforts are primarily enriching individuals in the finance 1% instead of enabling us to move into the 1% ourselves.
This is not too say we don't move up (Obviously the biggest centralization of wealth has been to individuals who founded tech companies), but engineering incomes in silicon valley are far lower on average than Wall Street incomes.
Of course being richer than 95% of the country makes you "rich"; that's near tautological. But that's not really the perception. Rather, the perception is that you're rich when you no longer need to work at all and can simply do whatever you want. That's really fuzzy, and I'd agree that it's indicative of wealth disparity in America that this has become the predominant conception of wealth.
My point is that you two are probably talking past each other without meaning to.
Since these are some of the most sought after real estate areas, it seems these areas would be the preserve of the top 0.1%, or 1%. Back of the napkin maths here I'll admit.
The good news is there's still a huge chunk of the country where you would be considered wealthy by land value prices.
Much less than that. I did a quick calculation and Manhattan + SF is 0.0018% of total US land area. Might be 0.1% if it's only developed land.
> Since these are some of the most sought after real estate areas, it seems these areas would be the preserve of the top 0.1%, or 1%. Back of the napkin maths here I'll admit.
1.6M live in Manhattan, 800k in SF. That's 0.8% of the population.
You have the causality in the wrong order. They are the most expensive places on earth because they improve your quality of life, not the other way around. The price is derived from demand which is derived from a desire to have access to many goods, services, and experiences not available in many other places.
I can speak personally to two other cities I've lived in where housing costs are quite high (though lower than SF and Manhattan): DC and Santa Monica / West LA.
My fiancée and I lived in DC for 5 years in a wonderful expat bubble. While I'm am American, the vast majority of our friends were from all around the world and worked at international development organizations. The extra money we paid for housing was worth all the interesting experiences.
Los Angeles is no different. It's easy to find interesting experiences and food through its diverse populations. There is a fundamental aspect to the nature of cities, viz. that there is a good to density itself. It enables humans to get value out of the shear existence of interacting with other humans in interesting ways. You need enough demand for an experience to support the existence of many experiences (e.g. You can't have a live punk music scene in a town of 100 people. Or even if somehow you do bc the entire town loves punk, it will be at the expense of those people being into other interests. Having enough people with enough wealth and distributed across enough interests/cultures/foods/music tastes, etc facilitates access to way more possible experiences. That, at least, I why I love large American cities.
And I guess it also has to do with the phase in your life; I value freedom above goods & services handy. The satisfying experiences I have in cities all over, also cheap as chips cities in Asia and cities & villages in Asia & Europe. For people making so much money it seems that freedom is within reach if only compromise on the place of living is made. But you make a good points; I made/make decisions based on those points as well at some times; just now I value freedom more than other things.
Which I wouldn't consider rich
And the downvotes begin. Usa high inequality means low pay for many which benefits the wealthy!!