Which types would theoretically have the highest income?

[FarDraft]

Straightforward. The stereotypical answer would be to say gammas, but that doesn't seem true. I'd assume beta STs are high up there considering their focus on rising up hierarchies. LxE as well. Can't leave out the ethical types, either. I've heard Fe base types can be shrewd as hell. But idk. Thoughts?

I have no data so I'm just speculating.

[Tallmo]

LII can have very high income.

Richest person I know personally is LIE

[ContractedCriminalboy]

LxE would be the standard answer and imo that would be most accurate, and of those two types, LIE would be the more likely to jump into incredibly risky financial adventures so I'd say LIE. Richest person I know (assumption due to their owning a large luxury pent house in Manhattan) is an ILE who does some sort of business, and other potentially wealthy people I know include an investment banker who is LIE and a corporate lawyer who is ESE.

[Alomoes]

Oh boy, this is litterally asking people to try to spock the odds. You'd be better off doing a survey, which people know, thus they'll answer back with personal annecdotes to fill data, like the guys above did.

For example, back when people did try to Spock the odds, the answer was ILI. Now, everyone knows what wasteful pieces of trash we are from a survey, which said ESTj or something. Afaik, we only made ~50k average, and were almost the highest of the intuitives in that survey. That is assuming I'm INTp. And let me tell you, I bring the average way down. IE, I'm below $50k.

[Adam Strange]

Oh boy, this is litterally asking people to try to spock the odds. You'd be better off doing a survey, which people know, thus they'll answer back with personal annecdotes to fill data, like the guys above did.

For example, back when people did try to Spock the odds, the answer was ILI. Now, everyone knows what wasteful pieces of trash we are from a survey, which said ESTj or something. Afaik, we only made ~50k average, and were almost the highest of the intuitives in that survey. That is assuming I'm INTp. And let me tell you, I bring the average way down. IE, I'm below $50k.

Sounds like you have the same tax attorney as I do.

[The Reality Denialist]

Money is the biggest de-motivator there is.

[sbbds]

Money is the biggest de-motivator there is.

True. But still d33p.

[Sol]

Se ego types have highest motivation for property/money.

[Tallmo]

I dont see LSE as a high income type. There are lots of LSEs in low paying jobs like facility service, truck drivers etc. I know right now two LSEs who are unemployed with small ambition. I think LSE is generally a medium income type though. But they are very spread out in society. But how many LIEs can you find in low paying jobs?

[The Reality Denialist]

Status conscious people who think that they have failed probably hide the themselves well.

[sbbds]

Status conscious people who think that they have failed probably hide the themselves well.

On one hand this is true, but on the other hand I find that many types such as Se valuers and Te lead/ego (and sometimes, Si egos too) realize that in order to realistically provide for themselves and others, the first thing you need is MONEY.



I don’t see any room or time for considering the ego there.

[FDG]

I dont see LSE as a high income type. There are lots of LSEs in low paying jobs like facility service, truck drivers etc. I know right now two LSEs who are unemployed with small ambition. I think LSE is generally a medium income type though. But they are very spread out in society. But how many LIEs can you find in low paying jobs?

You can probably find a good amount of Lies working as high school teachers or in a factory lab or such

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, could be. Ambition is also a weord think. One could have ambition that is perpendicular to societal values. I think I'm a lot like this.

Also Gulenko process types value savings more than earnings (LSE is the clearest example of this).

[sbbds]

Also Gulenko process types value savings more than earnings (LSE is the clearest example of this).

Where is this said or alluded to?

[sbbds]

I dont see LSE as a high income type. There are lots of LSEs in low paying jobs like facility service, truck drivers etc. I know right now two LSEs who are unemployed with small ambition. I think LSE is generally a medium income type though. But they are very spread out in society. But how many LIEs can you find in low paying jobs?

You can probably find a good amount of Lies working as high school teachers or in a factory lab or such

One can only see things readily visible from their own position within their sphere of vision/domain.

[Tallmo]

You can probably find a good amount of Lies working as high school teachers or in a factory lab or such

Yes they exist. My math teacher in high school was probably LIE although I wouldnt call it a low paying job by my standards. But I still dont think they are comparable to the myriads of LSE who exist in simple jobs.

[The Reality Denialist]

You can probably find a good amount of Lies working as high school teachers or in a factory lab or such

Oh yes. The pay is not probably the lowest level. And high school teacher that is 20 h/week for >3 k€/month is not that bad.

[FDG]

Oh yes. The pay is not probably the lowest level. And high school teacher that is 20 h/week for >3 k€/month is not that bad.

Of course, I guess the allure of the job is also that you can use the free time for your projects.

[Adam Strange]

I dont see LSE as a high income type. There are lots of LSEs in low paying jobs like facility service, truck drivers etc. I know right now two LSEs who are unemployed with small ambition. I think LSE is generally a medium income type though. But they are very spread out in society. But how many LIEs can you find in low paying jobs?

I had a lot of low-paying jobs initially. But I was never into the job for the money. Instead, I would decide that I wanted to learn how to machine metal parts, or weld them together, or learn more about libraries, or see what a working cyclotron was like, and I preferred getting paid to learn this stuff on-the-job to paying for training.
But the same things kept happening. I’d learn the task I was curious about and then would quit and look for another interesting thing to learn. Also, I kept getting raises and promotions if I stayed in the job for more than a few months.

I took more and more responsible and challenging jobs to avoid boredom, and while each job was different, I was always focused on the question of how the company would make money next year, even when that was no part of the job description. And somehow, my income just kept rising....

There came a point where I decided to try to make more money, which I hadn’t been doing previously. I intentionally, significantly (30%), raised the amount of money I asked for, and what happened was that some customers could not afford me, but others had no problem paying that and more. New customers, of a much higher quality, seemed to expect to pay a lot, and I got treated better, made more money, and could decide when I wanted to work.

For a long time, whenever I found myself working too hard, I’d raise my rates. Some customers would drop out and I’d get some breathing room, and then new customers would come in at the higher rates and away we’d go again.

I’d say that making more money was an accident, except that it seemed to follow from my desire to make things more productive and efficient, and that included what I earned in exchange for my work.

Making money is merely a question of providing someone with something they value. You get to choose what value you provide and who your customers are (which indirectly determines how much they can pay).

[Alomoes]

Indeed. That is a wonderful way of saying it. Although, generally, my ambition is a lot less, that's what I'm doing. I'm not in it for money, so I'll probably not make any more than what I need until I finish one of my various projects. Currently, I have two. One is estimated to end "eventually", and the other is a general practice routine. Very recently (started an hour ago), I'm also learning to skateboard, which is... Huh.

[Disturbed]

Theoretically? Logical types, Se valuing types.

In practice, Gammas (ILI the least, SEE the most) make the most money, are the most demanding of it, and value it the most, followed by ILE-Ti, EIE-Fe, SLE-Ti, LSI-Se, and IEI-Ni. Deltas and Alphas other than ILE probably don't make much money.

[anotherperson]

Ne types. bc they can see potential developments in the near future.

[Lord Pixel]

Richest people I know, SLI and LIE.

[Amoeba]

Straightforward. The stereotypical answer would be to say gammas, but that doesn't seem true. I'd assume beta STs are high up there considering their focus on rising up hierarchies. LxE as well. Can't leave out the ethical types, either. I've heard Fe base types can be shrewd as hell. But idk. Thoughts?

I have no data so I'm just speculating.

Yeah bull gates is an LIE and he's one of the richest men. Elon Musk is ILE so there you go.

[Kurt Gabin]

Yeah bull gates is an LIE and he's one of the richest men.

Isn't he LII? It's hard to imagine LIE who would leave the business and go to build charity toilets in Africa.

[FDG]

I have the highest income among all my high school peers; among university peers, one SLE and one EIE have a higher income (I wouldn't take the EIE job ever so I think he deserves the money). However, I could lose my job anytime if my performance was poor for whatever reason, whereas many of my peers have a stable state job which is basically impossible to lose unless you purposefully fuck up. That makes a big difference since maybe, in 15 years, I'll be homeless and they'll have the previous job and saved more money...who knows. Bottom line, it's not just about skills and attitudes, it's also about how much risk averse you are.

Doesn't mean I'm rich anyway - I wasn't born rich so I just have some normal savings.

[Amoeba]

Isn't he LII? It's hard to imagine LIE who would leave the business and go to build charity toilets in Africa.

No very stereotypical LIE

[The Reality Denialist]

Probably this deals a lot about your end goals in life. This is probably not type specific.

If you do not want a family, get married and so on it gives you lots of freedom and also lessens your need to make money. I suppose Gulenko DCNH sort of carves this outline where D&N wants to make it in those terms (to sell other and themselves). C&H leave it hanging to see if something opens up. I experienced family life when I was a kid why would I want to repeat it again? Well, the whole existence in our biological dynamics I have become to deem as unethical (~life is wrong).

[Averroes]

Ni (trend/pattern recognition) + Te (competence, gathering information, knowing exactly what steps to take to reach a goal) + Positivism (optimism, seeing opportunity everywhere instead of thinking about how things could go wrong or big of a hassle it would be to start something) = LIE

[Averroes]

I could also see process types having an advantage when it comes to doing tedious things to improve their lives and not being dissuaded by short term failures