Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdawson | Hacker News Reader

How does the cost of flats in Manhattan compare to the salary of the average American?

London real estate is notoriously expensive and it's not a practical way to measure wages.

The top rate of tax on earnings over £150k (until the pound crashed recently would have been around $200k) applies to roughly 600,000 workers. The UK has a population of 68M. If you earn upwards of £150k, you're rich.

> In my mind that salary does not make anyone rich, I mean that's a low to mid level engineering salary in the US. Basically almost any US professional (lawyer, doctor, engineer etc) is going to make that or much more.

When your world is tech and you're familiar with the salaries on offer, it's easy to lose sight of life for people who aren't inside that bubble. Your point of comparison is wildly skewed.

View on HN

Umm no, 150k US or UK is not rich! look at just rent in these US cities:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/11/how-much-money-you-need-for-...

what I am getting it is not a critique of the UK, its just that housing, cars and alot of other things are wildly expensive compared to what people make(in the US and UK). And in the US alot of folks I know are making at that level or above and are solid blue collar, police and firefighters, and electricians, or nurses(they are based in the bay area so that may skew things)

> look at just rent in these US cities:

The article is specifically highlighting the most expensive cities to live in.

Housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable and if you want to live alone in one of the most expensive cities, you'll need to be rich (compared to the average citizen).

If you already live in one of those cities, your point of reference is other people also capable of sustaining themselves in that environment.

There's no way those values are medians. And if they aren't medians it doesn't really prove anything.

> If you earn upwards of £150k, you're rich.

This time and time again. Income does not equal wealth. Sure over time you can build your wealth and become rich, but not really if you earn £150k.

It takes awful lot of work to get to that level. You are probably be in your 30s or 40s when you start making this much. If you come from working class, then you are unlikely going to have any sizeable assets until then.

£150k gets you "only" £7.5k net. If you want to actually enjoy life and fruits of your hard work, then you don't want to live in a flat share, you want to go out sometimes etc. In London, £3-4k rent for a decent home, nothing luxurious is a normal price. Bills, other outgoings probably £1-2k. You also want to save some money for retirement. With that kind of money, you are realistically looking at £2k of disposable income. To put that into perspective - if you put £2k each month into your savings account, it would take you about 40 years to save your first million.

This salary is really nowhere near making someone rich.

People are often confused, because they see an actual rich person that is making this much money, but they are not rich because they have such a job. They most likely inherited their wealth or they get money in other ways.

> Income does not equal wealth.

100% agree. You can have a high income and choose to live beyond your means preventing you from accumulating wealth.

We're debating income taxes and thresholds however so that's the metric we have to use.

Those on £150k+ are in the 98th percentile.

> Those on £150k+ are in the 98th percentile.

This metric is no longer meaningful, as in 99th percentile you'll have someone making £1.5m+, which is a world's difference.

> You can have a high income and choose to live beyond your means preventing you from accumulating wealth.

What I described wasn't living beyond one's means. It would be that if a person started engaging in taking loans and credit cards and buying things they can't really afford etc. Simple living adequate to earnings, at a £150k, won't make you rich.

> This metric is no longer meaningful, as in 99th percentile you'll have someone making £1.5m+, which is a world's difference.

We're debating various degrees of rich. If you earn more than 98% of your working peers, I don't know what else you could call that.

People make choices with their money. Living alone in an expensive city is a choice. If you choose to do that on £150k, you're going to have far less disposable income than others on that same salary making different choices.

I have very little sympathy for people who blow all of their income funding a lifestyle they can't afford to project the appearance of wealth and status.

Sure, but roughly 1/6th of the UK lives in London ...

Comments like "London real estate is notoriously expensive" don't really refer to greater London. Central London sure, but 1/6th of the population doesn't live there.

Central London has super-high-price "luxury" residential real estate.

London in general has way-way-way-more-than-median-income-can-afford residential real estate.

London itself (not Greater London) is roughly 1/8th of the total UK population.

> London in general has way-way-way-more-than-median-income-can-afford residential real estate.

If your metric for affordability is whether a single (local) median salary can afford a residential property, then almost nowhere in England is affordable. This is clearly a problem, but not unique to London.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com