Look, maybe I don't really get this whole "blog" thing, but at this point is there a reason everyone is still reading the blogosphere luminaries of the 2000-2005 era? Most of the stuff they post is neither compellingly novel, nor well-researched, nor well-argued. Admittedly, I don't read those folx every day, mostly because, when I do see one of them linked here or somewhere else and I click through, it's this same mediocre, counter-factual wanking. Am I missing something?
I thought the point was to try to provide one or two conversation topics each day for a few hundred imaginary geniuses.
I have more in common with people making $50,000 per year and with people making $100,000 per year than I do with people making $75,000 per year.
Well, nothing against linking to it if you think it's interesting, it just seems like there are probably more coherent and less superannuated bloggers out there to link to.
I'm always open to being sent links or guest posts.
4: You're always free to suggest post topics or even write guest posts.
Just dont' send them to heebie. She's mean.
Yeah, seems to me that all this proves is that most people are risk averse.
Drum is a very good blogger overall, and any suggestion that he's not (or needs an editor?) reveals lack of attention.
You know, if there were any women bloggers out there, I bet they'd have something to say about this topic. Alas.
(or needs an editor?)
Most writers can benefit from having an editor, if the editor is any good.
10: Not only does he need an editor, he in fact has one (speaking of lack of attention).
I have something in common with at least two people who make less than $30K/year, because we share a toilet.
Who the hell wants to risk being locked into $30K/year for the rest of their life?
At least 90-95% of the population of the earth would be thrilled to take that "risk".
suggested that one point worth making is that in America today, "someone making $100K has a lot more in common with someone making $30K than someone making $100 million."
Why is that a point worth making? It barely even seems like a point at all when you consider that someone who makes $100 million in one year is probably not making $100 million per year. Drum's response, not counting the coin flip, is right: So what? If you make $100k per year, sure, you might have money worries, depending on what you do with it. If you make $30k per year your whole life can get pretty fucked up by any number of ordinary events.
I'm so rich and white and privileged. Thanks, peep!
13: My point was only that Drum (with his editor) is fine, thanks.
But by decision theory standards, this is a great bet. You have a .5 chance of winning $900,000 x the number of years left in your life, and a .5 chance of losing $70,000 times the number of years left in your life. Ideally rational agents would leap at the chance.
This also seems like something that you can easily change the results of by changing the wording, but I can't think of how at the moment.
17: LB's original point was that the political interests of the 100Ker are more closely aligned with those of the 30Ker than the 100,000Ker. Drum seems to be talking primarily about lifestyle.
Certainly by changing "the rest of your life" to "for one year".
I'm so rich and white and privileged. Thanks, peep!
"Testy" is the other thread.
I was arguing what's essentially the editor's side of this last week, but that doesn't make Drum wrong. Possibly the break is between commonality of experience and commonality of interests? I'd still argue that there are more political interests in common between the 30K and the 100K earner than between the 100K and the 1M earner, but Drum's probably right that the day-to-day experiences of the 100K and the 1M earner are more like each other than the 100K is like the 30K. (And of course they all look very similar from the point of view of someone making a dollar a day.)
And of course they all look very similar from the point of view of someone making a dollar a day.)
Yeah, all those white people look alike.
Possibly the break is between commonality of experience and commonality of interests?
I think that's correct.
but Drum's probably right that the day-to-day experiences of the 100K and the 1M earner are more like each other than the 100K is like the 30K
But Drum's actually talking about 30K, 100K, and 100M.
It seems I missed some earlier portion of this conversation. The Drum post didn't do a good job of putting the editor's comment in context, especially since his response to that comes in a seemingly tacked-on sentence at the end.
20: only if you're neglecting the declining marginal utility of income!
I once neglected the declining marginal utility of income. Then it died and we got a gold fish.
Let's all say how much money we make! Sifu, you're first.
28: Seems like a pretty fair trade. Was it a solid gold fish?
16: Try it this way: Who the hell currently making $100K wants to risk sacrificing that and being locked into $30K/year for the rest of their life?
26: It seems I missed some earlier portion of this conversation.
There was a fairly recent previous thread on the topic which didn't exactly go well. I'm not inclined to revisit the topic myself.
||
New topic: My friend's phone is ringing off the hook from major news organizations calls about this bit of
astromological skullduggery.
I have personally met Mr. Kunkle, and while he seems like a nice guy, he is also a "character."
||>
20: That model neglects to account for the value that most of us place on the sense of security.
33: I have to admit, if you'd emailed me that link, I probably wouldn't have posted it.
36: Because your mean. Mean as a snake.
Why does it say "$100 million" in one place and "$1 million" in the other? Is one of them a typo?
38: I assumed so. Clearly Drum needs an editor.
37: Mean, white, rich, and privileged as a snake, you mean.
39: You don't consider the possiblity that Drum's editor needs a better writer.
"your" s/b "you're"
"mena" s/b "mean"
The penalties offset each other. Replay third down.
Yeah, seems to me that all this proves is that most people are risk averse.
But, as Kevin pointed out, experimental results indicate that people's risk aversion is usually on something like a 2:1 scale--twice as afraid of losses as tempted by gains. The expected value of the bet in his thought experiment is much higher than that, so purely in terms of risk-aversion most (or at least a lot of) people should have been willing to take the bet. Whereas almost no one was.
My thought, on initially reading his thought experiment, was: what am I currently doing to earn my $100,000, and what do I have to do instead in order to earn $30k, or $1m? Because if I'm doing something I like now, but I might have to spend the rest of my life cleaning toilets instead, then no thanks. But... can I just stop doing anything at all if I take the bet, and have a guaranteed income stream of either $30k or $1m/yr for life? Because if I can just sit around and smoke pot all day and get a check in the mail each month, I'm all in. Sign me up. Yeehaw. Let's rock and roll.
I agree with Di that the thought experiment only proves that people are risk adverse.
As M.tch says, I think Drum and LB are talking about very different things. Lifestyle vs. political interests.
I think that the main reason why a 100K income is closer to 1M than 30K in lifestyle is simply the declining marginal utility of wealth -- once you've got the bases covered, each additional add on just matters less. Sure, when you get to $100M you can get to fly on a G6, but anyone can be fly like a G6 anyway (with enough time at the gym) so your money doesn't buy that much.
Sign me up. Yeehaw. Let's rock and roll.
*fist pump!*
42: One of these people can edit the blog. Guess which one cannot.
Syzzurp is cheap. But also has declining marginal utility.
43.2 is an interesting thought. I'm not sure what the threshold is at which I would be happy with a guaranteed income for life with no work.
42: You guys could really use an editor.
but anyone can be fly like a G6 anyway (with enough time at the gym)
Wait what? Does Crossfit offer free bottles of Tussionex as an incentive or something?
Anyway, I didn't mean that this topic in particular was any better or worse than any other, just that this whole Drum/Wyggles/Greenwald/some other guys who I can't remember coterie of established bloggers get an inordinate amount of attention.
To the post: Given that $30,000 is twice what I made last year, and that I'm about to go on unemployment for who knows how long, I would definitely take the bet.
46: Shenanigans! Meanness! Meanness without bounds!!!
But, as Kevin pointed out, experimental results indicate that people's risk aversion is usually on something like a 2:1 scale--twice as afraid of losses as tempted by gains. The expected value of the bet in his thought experiment is much higher than that, so purely in terms of risk-aversion most (or at least a lot of) people should have been willing to take the bet. Whereas almost no one was.
So, that suggests people are more risk adverse when it comes to financial security than with respect to other risk. I mean, really, risking winning or losing $100 on a coin flip is really a much different risk than risking a permanent reduction of income of $70K or more per year.
The $30K thing seemed hard to me because it specified a family of four. Without that specification, it'd be a much easier deal to take, but thinking about a kid with a toothache I can't afford to get seen to immediately makes it seem like a very bad idea.
Last time I made $30K was in the mid-90s, before law school, and as a single healthy young person, it wasn't bad at all. I was saving money. Throw three other people into the mix, though... (and of course $30K then was more than $30K now.)
At least 90-95% of the population of the earth would be thrilled to take that "risk".
According to some silly internet thing I was looking at recently, making $20,000 puts you in the top 12% of incomes world-wide. I offer this helpful unsubstantiated fact for the low low cost of free!
52: Boy is it tempting to edit your comment into something about how delightful I am.
56: In case you're actually feeling contrite, please don't. If not, at least I'm rich!
57: But I did write about how delightful you are. Somebody edited it to make me appear mean!!
59: See, now I just want to edit "mean" into "mena".
According to some silly internet thing I was looking at recently, making $20,000 puts you in the top 12% of incomes world-wide. I offer this helpful unsubstantiated fact for the low low cost of free!
Reminds me of the beautiful but troubled Jenna in Freedom telling Joey that her boyfriend Nick says that free information on the Net is worthless. Of course Jenna and Joey (who is secretly married to Connie) are flying to Patagonia to have sex and ride horses. I think I got all that right.
but anyone can be fly like a G6 anyway (with enough time at the gym)
Wait what? Does Crossfit offer free bottles of Tussionex as an incentive or something?
Hmmm. I had thought that the song's lyrics separated out Sizzurp consumption as a separate activity unrelated to one's flyness (i.e., attractive appearance), such that Sizzurp drinking was encouraged but that one was also expected to be "fly" like a G6 by dint of one's physical, gym-induced good looks.
On closer review of the lyrics, though, that is not the case, and the point of the song is that one can feel like one is good looking through the consumption of Sizzurp. Is that an accurate description of Sizzurp drinkers in a Slizzarded state? I can't say. In any event, my apologies.
It's embarrassing how much they paid me to make Bio-Dome!
Per Wikipedia, $30k is about a third of US households, so some fucker had better be happy making it for the rest of his life, or there's going to be a revolution. Actually, thinking about it, mobility is notoriously poor, so I'd guess that a substantial fraction of people earning that would take the deal, on the basis that you'd be offering them a guarantee that they wouldn't slip into real poverty.
Oh, I forgot about the family of four part. So basically the choice is between going from solidly middle-middle class to either borderline poverty (in many parts of the country) or extreme wealth. That does change it a little bit, but I guess the counter-factual part still bugs me. The actual choices that people face, and which would presumably contribute to their ideological slant, are more like: "Flip a coin to see if you will take a 20% pay cut, with no more than a 2.5% raise in any given year, be forced into early retirement at 59 and see the retirement age increased to 70 or whether you will receive several promotions such that you wind up making $250,000 per year, plus 401(k) contributions, deferred compensation and other benefits."
I'm not really sure what Drum's poll actually has to do with his editor's claim, which was that someone making 100K (a year, let's say) has a lot more in common with someone making 30K than with someone making 1000000K.
67: It's the difference between whether the income-earners in question have a lot more in common politically or in terms of lifestyle, as has been mentioned upthread.
I'm pretty sure that the day-to-day experience of the $100k/year person have a lot more in common with the day-to-day experience of the $30k/year person than they do with someone making $100M/year (or even $10M/year, though maybe or maybe not someone making $1M/year).
I mean, someone who's making $30k/year almost certainly isn't homeless. They aren't eating cat food. They are, don't get me wrong, a lot poorer day-to-day than someone making $100k/year, but not so much different that their day to day experiences are a whole class apart. They'll have fewer and cheaper luxuries, but most of the difference is difference of degree, not kind.
Whereas someone who makes $10M/year has no need to work, can take exotic crazy vacations, probably has multiple residences, can have a driver if they don't like to drive themselves, can basically indulge any whim they want without worrying about it.
If you want to look for commonalities between a $100k and a $10M versus a $30k, I think you need to look not at day-to-day life, but at security and disaster recovery.
someone who makes $10M/year has no need to work
Presumably they do if they want the $10M.
can basically indulge any whim they want without worrying about it.
My whim is to spend $11M/year.
Further to 68: I'm projecting here a bit, but I think Drum's point may be that a lifestyle difference between $100K and $30K amounts to a political difference as well, contrary claims notwithstanding: the $100K family/earner isn't going to be as concerned about, say, health insurance, or the availability of fresh food (the urban food desert problem), or for that matter the availability of abortion providers. The $100K earner can travel to these things.
Presumably they do if they want the $10M.
I live off my investments.
72: I think the $100K earner without health insurance is greatly concerned about it, possiblly more so that the person with $30K in earnings. In most states, the $30K family will get coverage for at least the kids from the government. The $100K guy with a family is looking at at least $15,000 in premiums for coverage that might not be enough to protect whatever the family has saved should one get sick.
74: I'll drop the health insurance coverage item from my list for the sake of comity.
Feel free to address the food availability, and abortion provider question. I'll add in the relative abilities of the $30K vs. the $100K earners to buy a home, and throw in the home mortgage deduction for home-owners, and the regulations against renters in any number of communities.
Remember, my point is that the lifestyle difference between $30K and $100K amounts to a political difference -- not in party affiliation, necessarily, but in public policy priorities.
I'm not disputing the main point, even on health insurance. The $30k family probably wants expanded government care. The $100k family may want something different.
But, they are both worried about health care, if they don't have it through a job. You'd need more than $100k before you aren't worried about health care costs.
1
Look, maybe I don't really get this whole "blog" thing, but at this point is there a reason everyone is still reading the blogosphere luminaries of the 2000-2005 era? Most of the stuff they post is neither compellingly novel, nor well-researched, nor well-argued. Admittedly, I don't read those folx every day, mostly because, when I do see one of them linked here or somewhere else and I click through, it's this same mediocre, counter-factual wanking. Am I missing something?
Why do people have the same old boring friends they've known for years? There are probably much better people to be friends with out there somewhere.
You have some suggestions for blogs that are more worth reading than Drum's?
32
There was a fairly recent previous thread on the topic which didn't exactly go well. I'm not inclined to revisit the topic myself.
In what way did it go badly? Myself I think contentious threads are more interesting. Of course you don't want things so contentious that half the commenters leave forever but I don't recall the thread approaching that point.
51
To the post: Given that $30,000 is twice what I made last year, and that I'm about to go on unemployment for who knows how long, I would definitely take the bet.
Assume the choice is between $100,000 a year for sure or a 50-50 coin flip between $30,000 a year and $1,000,000 a year. Then do you take the flip?
76: The $30k family probably wants expanded government care.
The items I mentioned don't have much to do with expanded government care. Again, the (healthful) food desert, abortion (or family planning) provision. These are public policy issues, which are far less on the radar of the $100K family than they are on that of the $30K.
are far less on the radar of the $100K family than they are on that of the $30K
I'm not sure this is true, as a general matter, unless you control for the overall level of political engagement of the two families.
81: 76 was going back to health insurance. Just because you leave a topic, doesn't mean I have to.
Though I suppose I should be clear about stuff.
82: Okay. Let's control for that. I'll take a guess: $100K families are far, far less likely to prioritize issues of concern to $30K families than $30K families are, unless they're the unusual $100K politically engaged family.
This whole discussion is weird, because of the income/wealth distinction. I know personally a few guys who make north of $10m per year in income derived from their work. TheIr lives aren't much like mine, because they're working all the fucking time, are completely consumed by their jobs, and probably derive as much or more pleasure from the power they get from their positions of authority at work than they do from actual income. Sure, they have things like ski houses and fancy cars and go to fancy restaurants a lot, but those things are at best incredibly insigniicant parts of their lives -- mostly, it's just all about the work.
On the other hand, one of my best friends is independently wealthy enough to not have to work at all --he could probably draw an "income" from his assets of a few hundred thousand annually for life but takes a bit less to conserve the assets, lives in a building in Soho (NYC) that his family owns, etc. His life is also completely different, because it is more or less devoid of work -- he manages a few family assets for maybe 10 hours a week or so, and otherwise he just raises his kid, watches TV, and does things like take random extension courses at NYU. He doesn't "make" 10 million but his lifestyle is obviously pretty much idle rich. On the othe hand, he just does pretty much what I'd do were I not working.
In conclusion, five dollars.
86.2: He probably fights crime using a secret identity.
No better conclusion than that, Robert Halford? I don't know about this five dollars thing.
I don't understand the thought experiment. Specifically, I don't understand how it is an experiment, and how it demonstrates thought.
86
How many people do you know equally well in the $30,000/year or less bracket?
I dunno. I guess optimal social policy means that wealth should accrue to productive workaholics, but those guys are assholes and I vastly prefer my wealthy, lazy friend. Maybe I'll start an anti-defamation society focused on the lazy rich.
I guess optimal social policy means that wealth should accrue to productive workaholics
meet:
are completely consumed by their jobs, and probably derive as much or more pleasure from the power they get from their positions of authority at work than they do from actual income
It sounds to me like optimal social policy would to tax most of their wealth away and give it to people who need it. Since after all the power and authority are the reasons they're such productive workaholics, not the extra money.
I can't really come upnwith a justification for helping only the lazy rich, though, and not the productive ones. Maybe a "drone exemption" to the redistributive tax if you can show that you've been basically just sitting around all day in an entertaining way?
44: Robert, I propose that you (and Di) are either misunderstanding risk aversion or marginal utility. You say this:
I agree with Di that the thought experiment only proves that people are risk adverse.
Reading that, I was going to disagree and cite the decreasing marginal utility of the additional dollars, but you did that yourself:
I think that the main reason why a 100K income is closer to 1M than 30K in lifestyle is simply the declining marginal utility of wealth -- once you've got the bases covered, each additional add on just matters less.
Your words, read properly, are contradictory. Personally, I agree with the latter statement. People who won't risk $70,000 annually for an equal chance of winning $900,000 are not risk averse, they merely understand that the marginal utility of each additional dollar falls off rapidly at some point.
91: Bah. Fuck wealth. We're all born, we live, and we die. We all deserve certain fundamental human and civil rights and services (where services might just mean being able to get a condom, or clean water).
It has nothing to do with level of workaholicism. Weirdo.
I just toss around Econo-ish buzzwords without really understanding them, as do most lawyers, but why can't both be true? I.e., the thought experiment works the way it does because of both (some) risk aversion and (some) recognition of the declining marginal value of the dollar?
Who's going to stand up for the lazy non-rich?
The questioner has two sealed envelopes. One indicates you get the $30K, the other the $1M. After you select one, he offers you to trade envelopes. Should you?
98: What do they pay per year to stand?
So most people making $100K wouldn't flip the coin if you could get $1 million per year or $30k per year. But what if instead of $30K it was $50K? Probably a lot more people. I wonder what dollar value would get 50% of folks to make the bet.
http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/2009/08/blog-post_5340.html
But what if instead of $30K it was $50K? Probably a lot more people.
Yeah, this. It may be just a special case of the declining marginal utility of moolah, but isn't there, like, a threshold effect? There's some amount of money you consider necessary to lead a decent life, and for a downside outcome below that level you wouldn't take the choice even given very good odds on the upside, but above that only the usual risk aversion and marginal utility issues apply.
Also, the unwillingness of commenters to take the gamble is a point in favour of the claim by Rawls that in the Original Position the rational person would insist on a society which maximises the welfare of the worst-off. (I mean, the threshold thing is a bit different in that it's consistent with allowing inequalities that aren't for the benefit of the worst off as long a the worst off lead a decent life, but it's related.)
Won't somebody mention Kahneman? I mean geez.
Maybe I'll start an anti-defamation society focused on the lazy rich.
You could start by calling them "idle" or something even less pejorative. Ladies and gentlemen of leisure? The leisure class?
The other thing is that it's far from clear that most of those super-high-earners actually do, in fact, produce a lot for society.
I'd totes take this bet; my statistical pedantry wouldn't allow me to do any other. Besides, 30K goes pretty far in a lot of places; I'd just go become a poet warlord in Laos or something. Of course, with thirty grand I'd probably only get a henchman, two flunkies and a limerick, but it'd still be pretty sweet.
97: why can't both be true?
Because Halford says so! See 44:
I agree with Di that the thought experiment only proves that people are risk adverse.
More seriously and less obnoxiously: I find Drum persuasive that both are true - and that the marginal utility effect swamps the risk aversion effect.
I lived in a two-adults/no-kids 30K household in my mid-20s and a two-adults/three-kids 100K household now. My standard of living is a little higher now, but not by much. Small children are expensive, though I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel*. OTOH, raising three kids on 30K would be a serious downgrade.
*2011 looks to be much more comfortable than 2010: we refinanced the mortgage, paid off the equity line, finished paying off one of the cars, and I reached 9 years at my job, where they cover 100% of your whole family's health insurance. So back into the black for the first time in three years! Also, if the youngest gets picked in the lottery for one of the two public Montessori magnets (which have pre-K programs), we'll be done with day care in the fall. That alone would add about $900/month back into the budget.
Small children are expensive
You're suppose to use them in small amounts, for flavor.
OT: Terrorism, the government response to it, entrapment, and gun control are all very weighty subjects that I'd like to ignore as I point out that "You're allowed to sleep with them, even though that's kind of stupid" is a phrase I did not expect to see in this context.
I thought 111 was going to be about this.
111 gets to that, at the bottom of the article.
111: This sounds like a gigantic miscarriage of justice. Based on my internet researches, there's probably about 100,000 young men in this country who also: (a) have some guns and ammunition, (b) like to imagine themselves as heroic martyrs and (c) talk to people even crazier than themselves on the internet. The difference with most of them is that they're some variety of neo-Nazi/reactionary/Klan/asshole, rather than deluded pseudo-Muslims.
But back on topic, I think I have one or two friends who are in the $100K range. But the vast majority of my friends are much closer to the $30K range. In fact, I've got quite a few friends who only survive because of the EIC. Of course, since I know many of my friends through radical politics, they're not very instructive for the purposes of determining political affiliation. But as far as lifestyle goes, it's kind of hard to say. Certainly my few $100K friends are wont to go on nice vacations, have more money in the bank and for retirement, and drive nicer cars, and, perhaps most trenchantly, live in much less-racially-integrated neighborhoods than my $30K-and-under friends. But they generally work harder to do all that, and they still feel insecure about the future.
The other thing is that it's far from clear that most of those super-high-earners actually do, in fact, produce a lot for society.
They produce a lot of net income, which they give to themselves. And good luck taxing it! Those clever sods will just turn it into "deadweight loss", and nobody wants that.
Yesterday I was listening to some NPR call-in show, whose topic was unemployment insurance. One caller, who seemed to have been employed previously closer to the $100K mark, was reacting to her experience dealing with the unemployment office. It's really inefficient! And they don't even ask for ID, just your SSN! And it's really wasteful!
It made me feel very skeptical about the prospects of $100K types en masse identifying with the $30K (or less) crowd.
I've mentioned before this poverty simulator workshop, which seems like it might be useful for, uh, lots of people. One relative's recent experience: it's a royal fucking pain in the ass to do things like get a state-issued ID without, say, access a personal vehicle.
poverty simulator workshop
And yet Flight Simulator had all the sales.
117: I'm sure I've said this here before, but waiting for WIC appointments while caring for a small child is a huge pain and navigating all the related bureaucracy is frustrating even for me, with my middle-class background and education and car. I also think being a foster parent opens doors for me that a biological parent whose child gets WIC and is on state Medicaid couldn't access.
The interesting question isn't whether the $100kers would take the coin flip, it's whether the $1mm-aires would be willing to take the coinflip. That's the relevant comparison. The middling $100,000-aires don't know what it's like to be rich, so they don't know what they're missing.
And is it true that some people have to take the bus to the dmv? Couldn't some sort of limousine service be set up so that kind of indignity will never happen again?
121: The person I was thinking of was in an area without public transportation, but I'll pass along your thoughtful suggestion. Thanks!
||
NMM to Trish Keenan of Broadcast. I'm pretty bummed about this, I love(d) Broadcast. Do yourself a favor and check out Broadcast and The Focus Group Investigate Witch Cults of the Radio Age.
|>
This discussion about the meaning of an annual income of $30K vs. $100K per year reminded me of the opening sentences of How to Lie With Statistics, which was published in 1954:
"The average Yaleman, Class of '24," Time magazine noted once, commenting on something in the New York Sun, "makes $25,111 a year."
Well, good for him!
But wait a minute. What does this impressive figure mean? Is it, as it appears to be, evidence that if you send your boy to Yale you won't have to work in your old age and neither will he?
Extremely late, but 70:
I don't have any figures on hand, but I seriously doubt that very many people who make $10M/year do so via a job. A few of the very top-flight CEOs, perhaps, but otherwise, it almost certainly comes from investments for the majority of people.
But, even if you have no starting wealth, but make $10M/year, it's clearly the case that after a pretty small amount of time, you don't have to work. Call it, I don't know, 5 years? $50M income, throw half of it to taxes (actually, likely less), $25M, invest it relatively conservatively and take out $1M per year to live off of, and it should last you the rest of your life (you'll probably be drawing down the principal, but only slowly).
At which point, compared to the $100k/year person, you can spend decades living on ten times his income without working. If you're willing to live on "only" three times the $100k/year person's income, that much less difficult.
But, again, actually the case is that almost nobody who makes $10M/year gets most of it from their job -- lots of them HAVE jobs, but they're jobs that they can quit and still be very, very rich.
And that's one of the key differences between the $10M person and the $100k and $30k people -- the $10M person has a lot of options if they don't want to work.
(I'm using $10M as a reasonable compromise between the $100M and the $1M that Kevin Drum's post addresses. If we take the $100M person as the actual modal "super rich person," then it's obviously the case that they never need work more than maybe a year on the outside. The $1M person is more likely to derive their income from a job, and while they could relatively easily accumulate enough wealth to quit working and live a modest lifestyle, they'd have a lot more difficulty quitting working and live a lavish, ultra-rich lifestyle)