Where by "all these people" we mean an extremely small fraction of the population. If I think about things honestly, I'm paid more than almost everyone I interact with regularly. Many of these people aren't lazy or stupid or dropout or what-have-you. They also went to good schools and got good grades and are excellent at what they do; but it turns out that the "brick wall" in their field is a fraction of what it is in the tech industry. So, yes, I know a few people making more than I do, mostly in jobs I don't want to do, with working hours I wouldn't tolerate; but I'm not feeling too sorry for myself.
I think that was the point of the article. If you actually get close to the brick wall in your profession, you'll meet people who've gotten past it. And suddenly, what seems like an enormous amount of money is just the tip of the iceberg, and you're left wondering what these people have that you don't.
But to break the 99th percentile - I think that was $342K/year for 99.5th percentile of single filers - you need to take on some risk. Like forgoing your income for a few years to found a company. Or taking on a lower salary and the risk that you'll be laid off in a year and getting a job at a startup. Or putting up your own money to invest in one. Or taking on high-visibility, high-impact projects that may fail - often at the cost of your regular duties - within your day job.
For people whose whole life has been a steady upwards progression, risk is scary. It often looks impossible. And so they're stuck at a point in life where they know people who have vastly more money than them, but they don't understand how or are unwilling to achieve that.
Or society support mechanisms - many ppl in say Scandinavia use the two or more years of high unemployment benefits to start a business risk-free. Actually in Norway, to stimulate entrepreneurship, they would pay those benefits for the 1st six month of new company operation (to the owner).
I don't think this is true - all the traditional "low risk" professions have this ability: doctors, dentists, lawyers, investment bankers and fund managers. $300k+ is not unusual for a mid-level person in these industries. Senior people in these industries will hit $1m+ pretty easily without having taken on any significant personal risk. A lawyer 3-4 years out from law school in a large firm is going to be sitting on $200k+ already.
This is the OP.
2. Taking a bad important medical decision will have bad financial consequences - lower reputation, not so good references, patient complains leading to big losses of time - lower income in the future. Also there's stuff like which team do you join, what new technical skills do you get, which part of the world you work in. You take a lot of risk, you can expect higher rewards on success.
One knows all the risks involved in his job, and few in other's jobs.
I bet there are 100s of jobs where the top salaries are over two million. There are very few who can get them, though.
Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dull-normal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.
"The Millionaire Next Door"
http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?book_number=242...
Obviously there's a small number of people for whom this will happen but I'm pretty sure most corporate execs make >$200k
Most early employees never make it anywhere near management if they weren't management employees to begin with (and with venture-funded companies, those usually get replaced; Steve Blank wrote about this I think). Ditto for getting your company acquired (how many acquired YC alumni ended up quitting right after acquisition? something like 99%?). Meeting the right people also doesn't have as much to do with it as you'd suspect - a lot of CxOs are found through searches, and may come from companies in a completely different sector of the economy. As for entrepreneurial drive, that's the reason we're all here reading HN instead of being content with working for an "entrepreneurial" manager.
I recommend reading Sharon Voros' The Road to CEO - it describes the typical public company's executive officers' background pretty well. The basic idea is you have to work your way up the management chain of command and build up a solid resume (spending time at a prominent business consulting shop apparently can act as a short-cut for this). Personal qualities related to making good first impressions seem really important at the high level - the author spends a couple of chapters on things related to grooming and appearance. I don't run in CxO circles, but that seems an accurate impression from the senior management people I've encountered.
Bottom line seems to be you need to get into management and work and charm your way up.
I like that you made a distinction between large and extremely profitable companies, because large companies often still pay their CEOs extreme salaries even when performance falters.
Case in point, Robert Nardelli at Home Depot made $123.7 million, excluding stock option grants, over 5 years from 2002 to 2007, while the company's stock price faltered. He was essentially fired and still got a severance package of $210 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Home_Depot)
Dick Grasso is another that comes to mind.
(A variation on 3. You probably won't earn $100 million, but you could definitely earn $1 million. )
6. Become a top performer in entertainment (music, sports, movies).
A fun fact ignored by most people: it isn't just CEO pay that has skyrocketed over the years. Alex Rodrieguez gets $33 million/year, at his peak Babe Ruth got (inflation adjusted) $1.1 million.
5. Become a top developer at a big software company.
(A variation on 3. You probably won't earn $100 million, but you could definitely earn $1 million. )
6. Become a top performer in entertainment (music, sports, movies).
A fun fact ignored by most people: it isn't just CEO pay that has skyrocketed over the years. Alex Rodrieguez gets $33 million/year, at his peak Babe Ruth got (inflation adjusted) $1.1 million.
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-engineer-gets-6-millio...
I seriously doubt Google is paying him 30x his yearly salary not to jump ship for Facebook.
I also happen to know a few cases of million dollar quants being poached from financial companies to software companies (specifically IBM, MS, and a couple of smaller companies I'd probably do better not to mention by name).
People aren't ignoring it. The two things aren't related to each other. Alex Rodrieguez makes so much money because tickets to see him play cost so much (especially compared to what it cost to see Babe Ruth).
For the situation to be the same Rodrieguez would need to be making the same as Ruth (inflation adjusted) but the managers to be making 100+ times more money.
What's actually happened is prices have gone up. The difference you see is that certain professions have much better representation to ensure they get their share of the increased profits.
EDIT: A bit of point clarification.
Sorry, this theory is wrong.
Looking at http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haupert.mlb the average price of baseball tickets has, after adjustment for inflation, not changed very much.
What has changed is the value of the income from TV. Even so, the revenue for players has risen faster than the income from TV.
Another factor, not shown, is the size of the audience.
However even if you add all that together, I believe that salaries have still gone up by more than revenue. And I attribute that to the rise of free agents.
>What has changed is the value of the income from TV.
And as mentioned by another commenter, merchandise and so on. Even if what you're saying were true that players have a larger percentage of the overall pie that their team makes (I don't believe this for a second without a lot more analysis) that could indicate that they were under-compensated before and are now getting a fairer share. Perhaps because of unions, perhaps because of (as you mention) free agents.
"The median income for public-university presidents in the 2007-08 academic year was $427,400. The average head of a private university* took home about $100,000 more." [1]
And that's old data.
[1] http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/02/0216_college_pres/1....
Now there are four ways that I am aware of to make more than about 200k/year.
1. Be an investor/entrepreneur in your own company.
2. Have stock in a company that IPOs or get bought.
3. Work in high finance at a well performing hedge fund or a maor wall street firm.
4. Be a senior partner in a major law firm or an experienced surgeon in an in-demand specialty. Though you'll still top out at about 500k, at least according to glassdoor.com.
Did I miss any?