Quote
How to join the 1%
A book on the persistence of elites is an unexpected guide to getting a good job
May 16th 2015 | From the print edition
MANAGEMENT consultants, investment banks and big law firms are the Holy Trinity of white-collar careers. They recruit up to a third of the graduates of the world's best universities. They offer starting salaries in excess of $100,000 and a chance of making many multiples of that. They also provide a ladder to even better things. McKinsey says more than 440 of its alumni run businesses with annual revenues of at least $1 billion. The top ranks of governments and central banks are sprinkled with Goldman Sachs veterans. Technology firms, though they are catching up fast, have nothing like the same grip on the global elite.
Which raises a pressing question: how do you maximise your chances of joining such elite professional-services firms? Lauren Rivera of Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management has spent a decade studying how these firms recruit. The result, "Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs", is an academic book with the requisite references to gender theory and Marxist concepts of inequality. But read it carefully and it becomes something far more useful—a guide on how to join the global elite.
The bad news is that by far the best way to get into the tiny group of elite firms is to be studying at the tiny group of elite universities—Ivy League colleges in America (where Ms Rivera did her fieldwork) or Oxford and Cambridge in England. The firms spend millions of dollars love-bombing these institutions with recruiting events: students can spend the recruitment season wining and dining at their expense. However, as Ms Rivera notes, firms reject the vast majority of elite students they interview: so even the most pedigreed need to learn how to game the system.
The most important tip is to look at who is doing the recruiting. Whether in consulting, investment banking or the law, firms use revenue-generating staff rather than human-resources people to decide who has the right stuff. The interviewers are trying to juggle their day jobs with their recruiting duties: they seldom spend more than a minute or so reviewing each application form. In the interview room they behave predictably: they follow a set script, starting with some ice-breaking chit-chat, then asking you about yourself, then setting a work-related problem. That makes them desperate for relief from the tedium. Be vivacious. Hang on their every word. And flatter their self-image as "the best of the best" and the most jet-lagged of the jet-lagged.
The most important quality recruiters are looking for is "fit": for all their supposedly rigorous testing of candidates, they would sooner choose an easy-going person with a second-class mind than a Mark Zuckerberg-type genius who rubs people up the wrong way. Staff in professional-services firms spend most of their time dealing with clients; so looking the part is essential. They also expect their employees to spend extraordinary amounts of time together—learning the ropes in boot camps, working late in the office, having constant work dinners, getting stuck together in airports in godforsaken places. Recruiters repeatedly told Ms Rivera that they looked for people who could be their friends as well as their colleagues. One compared hiring to "picking a team on the playground growing up"; another described his firm as "a fraternity of smart people".
It is easier to give the impression you will fit in if you have swotted up on the firm in question. Speak to any friend-of-a-friend you can find on the inside, to learn about its internal culture and its inside gossip. One candidate in Ms Rivera's sample passed the interview by adopting the persona of a successful consultant that he knew at that firm. Even if you do not go that far, you must at all costs avoid appearing nerdy or eccentric: there are plenty of jobs with tech companies for those types. The old-fashioned belief still prevails that playing team sports, especially posh ones like rowing, makes for a rounded character.
The final key to success is to turn your interviewer into a champion: someone who is willing to go to bat for you when the hiring committee meets to whittle down the list. Emphasise any similarities that you can find between the two of you. If the interviewer sees a little bit of himself in you, a phenomenon known as "looking-glass merit", he will regard any attempt to eliminate your name as a personal slight.
Minority margaritas
As for those who have not got into the elite universities, all hope of joining the bulge bracket of professional-services firms is not lost. As Ms Rivera's book demonstrates, even the most tenuous connection with insiders can be of help. If you belong to an underrepresented group and meet a recruiter over cocktails at a "diversity event", exploit the connection ruthlessly.
Ms Rivera notes that coming from an underprivileged background can actually be a plus, if sold well. Recruiters love to hear stories about gritty candidates triumphing against the odds. She also notes that there are organisations that can help non-elite candidates to sell themselves. Sponsors for Educational Opportunity, an American outfit, has an excellent record of pre-selecting ethnic-minority youngsters and getting them internships that can lead on to full-time jobs. America's armed forces play a similar role of giving a career leg-up to the disadvantaged. "I've spent two years in a job where any minute might be my last," one military candidate told an interviewer coolly. "Yes, I think I can handle high-pressure situations." But don't harp on about the odds being still stacked against you, or reveal that you have a sick mother or a demanding child, or you kill the Horatio Alger buzz.
This overwhelming emphasis on style rather than substance may seem an odd way to select members of the 1%. But those at the top of the consulting, investment-banking and legal professions know that the most prized possession in uncertain times is not brainpower, but self-confidence. For all the talk of the world becoming dominated by a "cognitive elite", in reality it appears it is nothing more than a "confidence elite".
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21651207-book-persistence-elites-unexpected-guide-getting-good-job-how-join
So the next question is how do people get into those universities :hmm:
My solution was to snaffle an overachieving lawyer who now subsidises my underachieving lifestyle. We're not quite 1% yet in terms of household income, but will be after a few more pay rises for her.
I have done very well out of feminism....
Quote from: Monoriu on May 21, 2015, 04:53:54 AM
So the next question is how do people get into those universities :hmm:
Hard work and/or athletic scholarship.
Quote from: Warspite on May 21, 2015, 05:28:34 AM
My solution was to snaffle an overachieving lawyer who now subsidises my underachieving lifestyle. We're not quite 1% yet in terms of household income, but will be after a few more pay rises for her.
I have done very well out of feminism....
You should meet my boyfriend. You guys seem to have a lot in common.
I would imagine that quite a few Languishites are in the 1%, qualification is surprisingly low :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30949796
£530,000? That's most home owners in Greater London for starters. The average property price is now £514,000.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 05:46:49 AM
I would imagine that quite a few Languishites are in the 1%, qualification is surprisingly low :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30949796
US$800k is a really low threshold. That's probably 80% of homeowners who have paid off their mortgage in Hong Kong. This is probably because the article defines 1% as "1% of the world's population". I think it should probably be "1% of the city/country I live in."
I thought this was going to be about the Bandidos.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 21, 2015, 06:06:57 AM
US$800k is a really low threshold. That's probably 80% of homeowners who have paid off their mortgage in Hong Kong. This is probably because the article defines 1% as "1% of the world's population". I think it should probably be "1% of the city/country I live in."
Then the answer is "Move to Haiti".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 21, 2015, 06:08:52 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 21, 2015, 06:06:57 AM
US$800k is a really low threshold. That's probably 80% of homeowners who have paid off their mortgage in Hong Kong. This is probably because the article defines 1% as "1% of the world's population". I think it should probably be "1% of the city/country I live in."
Then the answer is "Move to Haiti".
Is that the answer to any question?
I think it is $800k per person rather than household.........so a married couple would need $1.6m, but even so.
Good point from PW there :)
Are we talking 1% in terms of income or wealth?
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2015, 06:11:05 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 21, 2015, 06:08:52 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 21, 2015, 06:06:57 AM
US$800k is a really low threshold. That's probably 80% of homeowners who have paid off their mortgage in Hong Kong. This is probably because the article defines 1% as "1% of the world's population". I think it should probably be "1% of the city/country I live in."
Then the answer is "Move to Haiti".
Is that the answer to any question?
Thread title: How to join the 1%.
I'm not advocating such a course, mind you.
Quote from: Warspite on May 21, 2015, 06:14:00 AM
Are we talking 1% in terms of income or wealth?
I don't think the opening article gave any definition. I'll be happy with either.
RH's article clearly defines 1% as wealth.
It is really hard to get data on income (on a worldwide basis), but here is a neat calculator to play with :
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 21, 2015, 06:08:52 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 21, 2015, 06:06:57 AM
US$800k is a really low threshold. That's probably 80% of homeowners who have paid off their mortgage in Hong Kong. This is probably because the article defines 1% as "1% of the world's population". I think it should probably be "1% of the city/country I live in."
Then the answer is "Move to Haiti".
:lol: Yeah, that's a good point. 1% in China probably doesn't mean much, given the huge number of peasants and poor factory workers. Getting to within 1% of the wealthiest in Hong Kong is insanely difficult.
I think that most well-off people use the Mono approach; instead of looking at their position on a global scale they compare themselves with the people around them............the advantage of that is that hardly anyone ends up being in the unpopular 1% :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 06:26:58 AM
I think that most well-off people use the Mono approach; instead of looking at their position on a global scale they compare themselves with the people around them............the advantage of that is that hardly anyone ends up being in the unpopular 1% :cool:
People in Haiti don't affect me. It is utterly meaningless to say I am richer than the majority of Haitians. I live in Hong Kong. Other people in Hong Kong compete with me to get goods and services. So it makes sense for me to compare myself with my peers.
Yes, I agree with you but the problem is that your peers is a group that changes. If we take, for example, a succesful banker in the City, he will compare himself to his peers and not feel particularly rich, same with premier league footballers and so on.
I'm interested in this because so many political parties want to soak the rich, this is a popular move because, after all, barely anyone thinks that they are rich.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 06:36:54 AM
Yes, I agree with you but the problem is that your peers is a group that changes. If we take, for example, a succesful banker in the City, he will compare himself to his peers and not feel particularly rich, same with premier league footballers and so on.
Yes - this reminds me of an argument I once had in a cab regarding that MP who complained about their salary:
Person on £75000: "What people don't understand is that it's really hard to live on £60,000 in London. I barely get by."
Me: "Do you realise how you sound? The median salary in London is only £26k!"
The thing is, once you have adjusted to two skiing holidays a year, it is very hard to imagine life without that sort of comfort.
QuoteI'm interested in this because so many political parties want to soak the rich, this is a popular move because, after all, barely anyone thinks that they are rich.
On the other hand, I think a lot of left-wing, soak-the-rich thinkers fail to understand a genuine perception amongst a lot of "working people" (as we now call them) that people can get rich because they are hard-working and talented, so they deserve their rewards. The idea that if you build up a business that earns you £20,000 a year or £200,000 a year, there's no principle that demands you fork over a punitive sum to the government.
Quote from: Warspite on May 21, 2015, 06:58:26 AM
Yes - this reminds me of an argument I once had in a cab regarding that MP who complained about their salary:
Person on £75000: "What people don't understand is that it's really hard to live on £60,000 in London. I barely get by."
Me: "Do you realise how you sound? The median salary in London is only £26k!"
The thing is, once you have adjusted to two skiing holidays a year, it is very hard to imagine life without that sort of comfort.
I guess it depends on the point of making the comparison, no? There is something to be said that there is something to be said that for a person renting a 1 bed flat in Kensington, a person living in Tooting in a 3 person houseshare is not exactly a relevant comparator...other than like well you certainly make more than the latter person.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 06:24:11 AM
It is really hard to get data on income (on a worldwide basis), but here is a neat calculator to play with :
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i
It seems I joined the 3.4%
1.7%. So near and yet so far.
13.3% I didn't even make top 10. :(
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2015, 07:33:19 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 06:24:11 AM
It is really hard to get data on income (on a worldwide basis), but here is a neat calculator to play with :
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i
It seems I joined the 3.4%
I was pleasantly surprised how high I scored until I noticed it said 'after taxes'. :blush:
Anyway, if I give away 10% of my net income, which I really cannot afford, I will save 1 life.
Somehow I was expecting it to be more than that.
I joined the 1% in 1993.
That calculator is very sensitive to family structure, maybe too sensitive.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 08:25:00 AM
That calculator is very sensitive to family structure, maybe too sensitive.
Yeah looks like it. Apparently, I've long been in the 1% post-tax. :cool:
edit: there also seems to be something quite rigid about cost of living in each location. Appears to be much harder to break 1% in UK vs. US.
0.2% :ph34r:
Because I need to? Methinks the calculator is being a bit generous.
I'm not taking that test. I'm middle class.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2015, 08:40:30 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 08:37:32 AM
0.2% :ph34r:
So why are you still working?
I put in $100,000 post tax for US and it told me that was 0.1% for the world...(and with 2 people same household income, 0.8%).
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 08:45:25 AM
Because I need to? Methinks the calculator is being a bit generous.
Yeah, I'm in the "1%" according to this calculator, but I couldn't just retire right now and go live in a castle in Normandy or whatever. Because I totally would if I could.
I could be a godking in Haiti, I guess, but I'm just a regular dude here.
I wouldn't. I would quickly get bored. I like working.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2015, 08:51:13 AM
I put in $100,000 post tax for US and it told me that was 0.1% for the world...(and with 2 people same household income, 0.8%).
Huh. I am not that much lower than that (I mean making 100,000 for two working adults is not that mindblowing of an accomplishment). I guess it is because I have two kids. They are not that expensive.
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 08:53:30 AM
I wouldn't. I would quickly get bored. I like working.
You would get bored being able to direct your energies based on your own priorities? It is not like not being a wage slave means you have to sleep until noon everyday. You can work on things just because they interest you or you personally find them important, it does not have to be corporate bullshit.
But actually I don't know what exactly your job is besides the fact it sounds like an office environment for a big company. Maybe it is just incredibly interesting and personally valuable.
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 08:53:30 AM
I wouldn't. I would quickly get bored. I like working.
My job is boring already, so I'm used to that. :P
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 08:45:25 AM
Because I need to? Methinks the calculator is being a bit generous.
Yeah I didn't get the idea you were filling your money bin.
2.8% here, but lose the kids and it goes up to 0.8%.................intuitively that just doesn't seem right :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2015, 08:55:05 AM
But actually I don't know what exactly your job is besides the fact it sounds like an office environment for a big company. Maybe it is just incredibly interesting and personally valuable.
Of course you don't, as Money was the resident expert on what I did around here and drowned out my own attempts to explain it. :D
I am a financial systems admin. I run my company's financial ERP from which we do all of our accounting and finance work.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 08:59:59 AM
2.8% here, but lose the kids and it goes up to 0.8%.................intuitively that just doesn't seem right :hmm:
I mean if you look at our budget before and after kids the only big deal is the daycare and that is going to go away soon. Hardly a soul crushing burden.
The other reason why that calculator is stupid is because it doesn't ask WHERE you live beyond the country. It is dirt cheap to live where I do.
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 09:01:42 AM
I am a financial systems admin. I run my company's financial ERP from which we do all of our accounting and finance work.
Fascinating. So do you consider yourself in league with the axis of Dguller-Dorsey or merely an associate power?
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
The other reason why that calculator is stupid is because it doesn't ask WHERE you live beyond the country. It is dirt cheap to live where I do.
And it thinks it is cheaper to live in NYC or LA than Cornwall.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2015, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 09:01:42 AM
I am a financial systems admin. I run my company's financial ERP from which we do all of our accounting and finance work.
Fascinating. So do you consider yourself in league with the axis of Dguller-Dorsey or merely an associate power?
In league with. I spend pretty much all day working with accountants. Sometimes I even have to educate them on how to create a balanced journal entry. :bleeding:
The average worth of residents the town I live in has gone down significantly since they arrested the Hatton Garden burglars, half of whom lived here :blush:
Quote from: Brazen on May 21, 2015, 09:13:42 AM
The average worth of residents the town I live in has gone down significantly since they arrested the Hatton Garden burglars, half of whom lived here :blush:
They look like a bunch of old-school London villains, almost a shame they got caught :(
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 09:05:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2015, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 09:01:42 AM
I am a financial systems admin. I run my company's financial ERP from which we do all of our accounting and finance work.
Fascinating. So do you consider yourself in league with the axis of Dguller-Dorsey or merely an associate power?
In league with. I spend pretty much all day working with accountants. Sometimes I even have to educate them on how to create a balanced journal entry. :bleeding:
Accountants are educated stupid sometimes.
Oh you people are talking about money no one gives a shit about. I thought it was the true 1% that matters and serves their country. Silly me. I have no idea or care if I fall in that 1%. :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2015, 09:01:53 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 08:59:59 AM
2.8% here, but lose the kids and it goes up to 0.8%.................intuitively that just doesn't seem right :hmm:
I mean if you look at our budget before and after kids the only big deal is the daycare and that is going to go away soon. Hardly a soul crushing burden.
Do you not need money to feed, clothe, etc. for your children?
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2015, 09:22:29 AM
Do you not need money to feed, clothe, etc. for your children?
I don't really pay much to do those things. Both being boys and wearing the same size it is pretty easy to clothe them. Third world slave labor makes it dirt cheap anyway.
They are 2 and 4 and don't eat much, and even what they do is not exactly gourmet dining.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 08:59:59 AM
2.8% here, but lose the kids and it goes up to 0.8%.................intuitively that just doesn't seem right :hmm:
Why not? You just became twice as wealthy per capita.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 09:16:03 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 21, 2015, 09:13:42 AM
The average worth of residents the town I live in has gone down significantly since they arrested the Hatton Garden burglars, half of whom lived here :blush:
They look like a bunch of old-school London villains, almost a shame they got caught :(
I was going to judge the plumber by which school he went to, but he was brought up in Dublin. I'm pretty sure I can identify the pub in which the caper was planned by triangulating their addresses*, all of which are within walking distance of home.
*Crown and Horseshoes is my best guess.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2015, 09:25:17 AM
I don't really pay much to do those things. Both being boys and wearing the same size it is pretty easy to clothe them. Third world slave labor makes it dirt cheap anyway.
They are 2 and 4 and don't eat much, and even what they do is not exactly gourmet dining.
Yeah, for us daycare is probably 95% of the expense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2015, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 08:59:59 AM
2.8% here, but lose the kids and it goes up to 0.8%.................intuitively that just doesn't seem right :hmm:
Why not? You just became twice as wealthy per capita.
Maybe.........on the other hand the main reason we make the money is because we have children, used to be dropouts back in the day (well I guess I still am but with shares) :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2015, 09:25:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2015, 09:22:29 AM
Do you not need money to feed, clothe, etc. for your children?
I don't really pay much to do those things. Both being boys and wearing the same size it is pretty easy to clothe them. Third world slave labor makes it dirt cheap anyway.
They are 2 and 4 and don't eat much, and even what they do is not exactly gourmet dining.
Well presumably the costs won't remain minimal throughout their childhood. :P
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2015, 08:37:32 AM
0.2% :ph34r:
:worthy: :worthy: :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 21, 2015, 09:19:02 AM
Oh you people are talking about money no one gives a shit about. I thought it was the true 1% that matters and serves their country. Silly me. I have no idea or care if I fall in that 1%. :P
I serve my country. :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 06:24:11 AM
It is really hard to get data on income (on a worldwide basis), but here is a neat calculator to play with :
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i
QuoteYou are in the richest 0.1% of the world's population.
Your income is more than 175.9 times the global average.
:hmm: They seem like they just want me to donate to their charity.
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2015, 09:57:32 AM
:hmm: They seem like they just want me to donate to their charity.
Nothing gets past that steel trap mind.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2015, 09:44:05 AM
Well presumably the costs won't remain minimal throughout their childhood. :P
Yeah but when they get older we get to dump the daycare costs :w00t:
The really big expenses won't occur until after they leave home I expect :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2015, 09:57:32 AM
:hmm: They seem like they just want me to donate to their charity.
Share that wealth Scrooge McDuckski.
0.4%
I think they really need to do some sort of price level normalization. I put in $13,000 USD, which is roughly what a full-time worker at the Federal minimum wage makes after taxes and it returned 12.8%. There are probably millions of people worldwide making less than that in absolute terms who would have a higher quality of life than this hypothetical person.
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2015, 05:40:28 AM
Quote from: Warspite on May 21, 2015, 05:28:34 AM
My solution was to snaffle an overachieving lawyer who now subsidises my underachieving lifestyle. We're not quite 1% yet in terms of household income, but will be after a few more pay rises for her.
I have done very well out of feminism....
You should meet my boyfriend. You guys seem to have a lot in common.
:lol:
Moldy, they're fishing for donations. They have no interest in lowering the ranking of prospective donors.
Also interesting how none of these considerations seem to come up when discussing national 1 per centers. ^_^
Here is another tool - but it makes no provision for size of family at all.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
Wait do I enter household or personal income there?
Personal:
You're in the top
0.31%
richest people in the world by income.
That makes you the
18,652,583rd
richest person on earth by income.
Damn the world is poor.
If I was Moldy's hypothetical minimum wage worker.
You're in the top
11.62%
richest people in the world by income.
That makes you the
697,254,427th
richest person on earth by income.
Next single minimum wage working mother of 6 I see I will ask how it feels to be amongst the upper crust.
I'm assuming household. 0.04% :cool:
I assume it is personal. Though how this works with property, I dunno.
Quote from: Malthus on May 21, 2015, 02:22:39 PM
I assume it is personal. Though how this works with property, I dunno.
Oh. FUCK. :(
I put in my personal income but said it is a 2 person household to account for my boyfriend.
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2015, 03:29:09 PM
I put in my personal income but said it is a 2 person household to account for my boyfriend.
You guys living together Marti? :)
Or maybe Marty supplies him with all of his income.
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2015, 03:30:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2015, 03:29:09 PM
I put in my personal income but said it is a 2 person household to account for my boyfriend.
You guys living together Marti? :)
No, we prefer to live separately :)
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2015, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2015, 03:30:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2015, 03:29:09 PM
I put in my personal income but said it is a 2 person household to account for my boyfriend.
You guys living together Marti? :)
No, we prefer to live separately :)
Just like you and me! :w00t:
I wonder if Marti would pay me to keep us apart :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on May 21, 2015, 01:51:19 PM
Here is another tool - but it makes no provision for size of family at all.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
QuoteYou're in the top
0.07%
richest people in the world by income.
That cannot possibly be right.
If 2 billion people survive on less then five bucks a day, I think it could easily be correct. Americans are rich. It's actually quite a bit of eye opener even compared to our Euro brethren. Even the rich countries of Europe like Germany, Britain and France have average wealth levels in the West Virginia range or lower.
We need income/wealth calculators for each individual country, and preferrably another one for languishstan :cool:
PM me your gross income Mono and I'll start on it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2015, 07:56:07 PM
PM me your gross income Mono and I'll start on it.
You got me :blush:
QuoteSo the next question is how do people get into those universities
Have parents in at least the top 10%.
QuoteYou're in the top
0.86%
richest people in the world by income.
That makes you the
51,870,955th
richest person on earth by income.
:hmm:
As a feminist I'm not sure if I should applaud or condemn the "marry a rich bird" approach to wealth :hmm:
Too late for me to snag a successful bloke. I wasted my prime years and the decades since being the main (on only) bread winner in every bloody relationship :cry:
Quote from: Tyr on May 22, 2015, 06:02:19 AM
QuoteSo the next question is how do people get into those universities
Have parents in at least the top 10%.
The top 10%? No to get in the best schools you either need to be talented but poor so you get scholarships or part of the elite. Being middling is a tough road to the kind of elite prep schools that typically get you into the Ivies.
Quote from: Brazen on May 22, 2015, 06:22:42 AM
As a feminist I'm not sure if I should applaud or condemn the "marry a rich bird" approach to wealth :hmm:
You could be neutral about it. :hmm:
QuoteToo late for me to snag a successful bloke. I wasted my prime years and the decades since being the main (on only) bread winner in every bloody relationship
You just need to find one with a thing for historical re-enacting.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2015, 07:35:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 22, 2015, 06:02:19 AM
QuoteSo the next question is how do people get into those universities
Have parents in at least the top 10%.
The top 10%? No to get in the best schools you either need to be talented but poor so you get scholarships or part of the elite.
I'm pretty sure that I wasn't either of those two options. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2015, 08:57:41 AM
I'm pretty sure that I wasn't either of those two options. :unsure:
I was talking about attending the schools the put large numbers of people in those Universities. If it sounded like I was making a statement about every single person ever then I was not.
However I guess if 10% means simply making slightly above minimum wage I would guess that would be true but not particularly useful. Just have at least one parent with a job of some kind and you will get into an elite university.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2015, 09:02:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2015, 08:57:41 AM
I'm pretty sure that I wasn't either of those two options. :unsure:
I was talking about attending the schools the put large numbers of people in those Universities. If it sounded like I was making a statement about every single person ever then I was not.
Let me revise that. I would go so far as to say most of the people who I went to school with (or at least as far as I know) were not poor enough for great scholarships, nor were they part of a group that would be called 'elite.' :P
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2015, 09:05:47 AM
Let me revise that. I would go so far as to say most of the people who I went to school with (or at least as far as I know) were not poor enough for great scholarships, nor were they part of a group that would be called 'elite.' :P
Yeah now that I reflect on it you probably know more about people in elite universities than me anyway. Since I did not attend one.
However surely each person had at least one parent making $10 an hour or more.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 06:24:11 AM
It is really hard to get data on income (on a worldwide basis), but here is a neat calculator to play with :
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i
How do you calculate net income? Is it just gross minus taxes? Is it gross minus social security contributions (mandatory/voluntary)? :hmm:
Quote from: Zanza on May 22, 2015, 01:20:39 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2015, 06:24:11 AM
It is really hard to get data on income (on a worldwide basis), but here is a neat calculator to play with :
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i
How do you calculate net income? Is it just gross minus taxes? Is it gross minus social security contributions (mandatory/voluntary)? :hmm:
I took it to mean the money paid into your bank account after all deductions.
I would be a lot closer to the 1% if there was more poor people in the world.
My household is in 8,1%. I'm surprises Om this high for a liter middel classic household
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2015, 07:37:33 AM
You just need to find one with a thing for historical re-enacting.
The good thing about marrying a English Civil War reenactor, is that if they try to shoot you, you have a like 30 seconds between the time when they pull the trigger and when the gun actually goes off to think of a way to escape.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2015, 02:32:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2015, 07:37:33 AM
You just need to find one with a thing for historical re-enacting.
The good thing about marrying a English Civil War reenactor, is that if they try to shoot you, you have a like 30 seconds between the time when they pull the trigger and when the gun actually goes off to think of a way to escape.
Nah, but there is a 30 second loading/reload.
Get a lot of hangfires with fuse and flashpan.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2015, 09:02:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2015, 08:57:41 AM
I'm pretty sure that I wasn't either of those two options. :unsure:
I was talking about attending the schools the put large numbers of people in those Universities. If it sounded like I was making a statement about every single person ever then I was not.
However I guess if 10% means simply making slightly above minimum wage I would guess that would be true but not particularly useful. Just have at least one parent with a job of some kind and you will get into an elite university.
Top 10% would encompass very upper middle class people and even the poorer upper class people.
These are the ones who have the connections that let them get into the top schools.
Quote from: Syt on May 22, 2015, 06:11:36 AM
QuoteYou're in the top
0.86%
richest people in the world by income.
That makes you the
51,870,955th
richest person on earth by income.
:hmm:
.65% for me. This is a retarded calculator using retarded rules that do not account for PPP.
It also doesn't allow for negative numbers when calculating for wealth.