Future reliability like other Toyotas?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

You're right, I took it from the level of the top 10% of the 1st world population (of which you and @Dadhawk are) to being relevant to the majority of the first world population. Such as someone daily driving a 23 year old Toyota who does not want to worry about any issues whatsoever.

Not sure what top 10% of the population you are sticking me in....

My definition of reliable is probably different than most, I do agree on that. If I have a paid for car that is reliable enough so that repairs per year are substantially less than the cost of a new (to me) car, then I consider it reliable. As @Tcoat mentioned, if you can't afford a $500 (or even $1500) repair once or even twice a year on a car, you can't afford ANY car because more than likely you are paying more than that per year for a newer, "more reliable" car.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not sure what top 10% of the population you are sticking me in....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affl...me_as_a_metric

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affl...me_as_a_metric

According to this it only takes a job of 100K or more annual salary to be considered in the top 10% in America. For a single household income.




That can't be right.....

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

According to this it only takes a job of 100K or more annual salary to be considered in the top 10% in America. For a single household income.




That can't be right.....

The data is a bit old but unsurprisingly relatively unchanged to today. Here's a more recent Wall Street Journal piece:
https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

John Steinbeck


People vastly underestimate how fucked the majority is.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

According to this it only takes a job of 100K or more annual salary to be considered in the top 10% in America. For a single household income.

That can't be right.....

Statistically, it probably is correct, not sure that makes it right. You also have to consider this nugget...

Top 20% income vs. Bottom 20% income households: (1) The average number of people with jobs in a top income quintile household is two, while a majority of bottom income quintile households have no one employed.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affl...me_as_a_metric

OK, you got me there I guess. For what it's worth, I started in the bottom 10% and have worked for 40 years to get into the top 10%. Within the next 5 to 10 years, I'll start sliding back down the other way...

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

The data is a bit old but unsurprisingly relatively unchanged to today. Here's a more recent Wall Street Journal piece:
https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

John Steinbeck


People vastly underestimate how fucked the majority is.

Jfc, that little personal quiz is eye opening if it's even slightly accurate.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

The data is a bit old but unsurprisingly relatively unchanged to today. Here's a more recent Wall Street Journal piece:
https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

John Steinbeck


People vastly underestimate how fucked the majority is.

According to the linked info I am in the top 2% of white, baby boomer, males that didn't finish high School.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

According to the linked info I am in the top 2% of white, baby boomer, males that didn't finish high School.

My wife is a school teacher, and her salary make her a 20%er according to this. So much for teachers being underpaid....

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

The data is a bit old but unsurprisingly relatively unchanged to today. Here's a more recent Wall Street Journal piece:
https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

And the devil is in the details as it always is with statistics. This is based on "All figures count only those ages 16 and over who reported personal income greater than $0 in 2014."

At least the other chart excluded those that are probably working "casually for spending money".

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My wife is a school teacher, and her salary make her a 20%er according to this. So much for teachers being underpaid....

Do I have to explain cost of living adjustments to you old man?

A 10% income nationally here is just above the 'low income' threshold.

Also when you retire you can switch to the wealth tab where assets are measured instead of income.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Do I have to explain cost of living adjustments to you old man?

A 10% income nationally here is just above the 'low income' threshold.

Also when you retire you can switch to the wealth tab where assets are measured instead of income.

No, not at all you don't have to explain it to me. I guess my point is I think what people forget is most people start their work life in the low income bracket. Where you go from there is mostly in your control.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Do I have to explain cost of living adjustments to you old man?

A 10% income nationally here is just above the 'low income' threshold.

Also when you retire you can switch to the wealth tab where assets are measured instead of income.

I haven't seen the "wealth tab" lately -


humfrz

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by humfrz

I haven't seen the "wealth tab" lately -


humfrz

You needs assets for that.