I think some perspective is missing if you’re describing this as “pushing anyone down that attempts to break into the middle class” when the cutoff points (when the step changes occur, as you’re correct to note) come into effect at around something like the 95th percentile of UK salaries.
I don't think there's a clear consensus on what is considered middle class in this country now, for many it can be social, and other factors, I would consider it, in this context to be a certain standard of living.
Owning a home, having significant savings, holidays abroad at least once a year, sending your children to private school, etc are probably some things I'd consider markers of being in the lower middle class.
On that basis, homes are becoming harder to own, savings are being eaten up by higher cost of living, the pound is weakening and taxes are making it untenable to send your children to private school.
Maybe my idea of what being middle class is is wrong, but it can't be far off, and that's exactly the group of people who aren't going to go much further beyond that to whatever comes at the next stage, I don't know what living standards look like for people above that; multiple properties, significant portfolios, not working for a living?
I guess traditionally ‘middle class’ referred to the type of occupation (e.g. non-manual) which was typically associated with being better off.
But it’s not obvious that the standard of living associated with being better off would ever have been near the 90th, let alone 90th percentile of salaries?
Not convinced that sending children to private school would ever have been seen as a ‘lower middle class’ expectation.
But I’m also not convinced that the markers you describe are not available to someone at the 75th percentile of income, say, let alone to people at the 95th percentile. Now the luxuriousness of those markers may not be at the level marketed in glossy brochures etc but isn’t that an issue with unrealistic expectations?
I think the general point is you are presenting something as a hardship that is a quality of life unachievable for most people (even in the UK), and unthinkable for most people in the recent past, even in the West.
You come across as out of touch and entitled. You live in the future - enjoy it!
This may be slightly chicken and egg; it's the 95th percentile of salaries partly because no one wants to take a salary above that. Instead they use salary sacrifice, pensions, dividends, capital gains, leaving money in personal service company, etc. anything to avoid having a personal paper income above that threshold.
I suspect it's nowhere near the 95th percentile of earned wealth.
I don't think this hypothetical behaviour would change the 95th percentile or any percentiles below it, would it?
If the income of everybody above the 80th percentile dropped to be equal to the 81st percentile, the 80th percentile income wouldn't change the ones above would just be very closely bunched.
(Last time I checked the opposite was true and they got more spread out)
I think it would, once you put in place mechanisms to move your income down to below £100k, you can and probably should tweak them further to reduce your tax bill even further.
Just to pick one example, do you see something like state-imposed food standards as a 'hurdle' added by bureaucrats? What about housing construction standards?
One person's hurdle can be another person's safety net?
Yes monopolistic regulations are 100percent hurdles. Now free market standards that people can choose (if they want more safety net), or personal standards, well they don't affect everyone so those are fine.
The purpose of laws is to protect and govern their local citizens. I would hate to live in a world where a law does not get passed because of an argument like "but imagine how much work developers will have to do to follow the law!"
How does the PM know better than devs about whether or not they’re bringing the right information and not inadvertently summarising something incorrectly that’s technically important? Gatekeepers are generally inefficient longer-term.
You're attributing gatekeeping to the wrong place here. The customer is the gate and the customer's unavailability is keeping the gate shut.
The PO reduces that inadvertent gatekeeping by being always available with customer insights so the devs don't twiddle their thumbs or worse, build thr wrong thing, because they were guessing what the customer wanted in the absence of actually talking to them.
The PO reduces gatekeeping because they are an always available customer.
Absolutely, I didn't mean "tied directly" to mean linearly, but even that caveat being made I would happily weather through months or even years of like 1/2 or even 1/4 salary. If I worked at a company where say the highest paid person did not earn more than say 20X the lowest paid and all salaries were tied to the revenue I feel like on compensation structure alone I would be more likely to work there than most places. I think "the compensation scheme NOT creating a heinous caste system" is actually really high on my list of things I would want in a workplace.
yeah, agreed - a good understanding of the model's statistical assumptions can often help you make the model more robust and also give you ideas for what types of feature engineering are likely to work.
https://thesalarysphere.com/blog/average-salary-uk/