Hacker News Reader

Comment by sologoub | Hacker News Reader

That depends on tenure - if this hypothetical person has been in that position for many years AND has saved a significant part of their income, they may be “rich”.

However, FAANG really exploded in size only recently (and then hit layoffs), FAANG jobs are concentrated in VHCOL locations, so savings aren’t great for all. So while their W2 may look impressive, it’s far from a foregone conclusion that they are “rich”.

To me “rich” implies independence and the ability to stop working 9-5. That doesn’t describe the vast majority of FAANG (or otherwise) employees. There certainly are outliers and success stories, but it’s not the default case.

View on HN

> To me “rich” implies independence and the ability to stop working 9-5.

Perhaps this is a good example of the uselessness of the term “rich” when used absolutely because I would never interpret the word that way and we’d be talking past each other in any discussion!

High income and rich are not the same thing) I agree with grandparent comment that rich/wealthy denotes an accumulated level of assets, not just a high income (which may or may not be transient)

Thank you for your comment! It spurred another thought of why high income != rich - high new income usually is associated with high loads of debt in US, e.g. a mortgage to buy a house. Such leverage puts the recipient of this new wealth (compared to generational wealth or even an outsized exit in tens of millions or higher) into an even more precarious position and ups the dependence on the employer. Which of course matches with most financial advice to watch the lifestyle creep.

Agreed! Definitions matter, as another reply pointed out, I differentiate high income (a fairly attainable goal) with “rich”, or more specifically wealth, where the person is not dependent on the employer. Note that one cannot say “not dependent on others”, as people are always interdependent - stocks represent companies selling products, landlords depend on renters, etc

There’s a term for this: HENRY. High Earner, Not Rich Yet.

I also agree. Rich for me denotes a level of freedom that you can't have with _only_ high income. If your parents weren't high income for example, you might be building from zero, or negative, net worth.

What's a VHCOL and W2?

Anyways, I dont get your point. Rich people work ALOT! More for sure than 9-5 usually but they work. You seem to be confusing rich with "independently wealthy", aka: I inherited a large sum of money from my father Sam Walton, etc.

FAANG people are absolutely rich compared to anyone else and easily make the 1%. Think about that: out of 100 people do they make more than the other 99 people that work in cafes and Amazon warehouses?

The answer is yes.

“ According to the Economic Policy Institute, the average annual wage of the top 1% was $823,763 as of 2020”[0]

“According to recent studies, to be in the top 1% of earners in the U.S., you need to bring in an annual salary of at least $597,815. This means that the other 99% of earners in the U.S. make less than this amount per year. When it comes to net worth, the top 1% of Americans have a minimum net worth of around $11.1 million.”

Even within FAANG, most people won’t be coming near that

[0] https://www.epi.org/blog/wage-inequality-continued-to-increa... [1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/financial-advisor/a...

I think my definition is actually useful. Your definition means if I am on a bus with 100 people, at least one of them has a net worth of 11 million USD. I don't think so. Totally don't believe this.

That would be true if the people on the bus were selected truly randomly from the full population. They aren’t - not even close.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com