fjablo wrote:
I'm not a native speaker but in my understanding of the English language there is a difference between "might be" and "is likely". I'd prefer that you don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't do that. It would only be putting words in you mouth had I put that in quotation marks as you did.
fjablo wrote:
So, aside from not being an exactly scientific source it doesn't disprove anything I said. Some of the example salaries listed on that page are a bit below what I said e.g. Head of Marketing 88k vs my 90-120k for team leads in corporations. That's likely because I live in the Munich area where salaries are a bit higher than DE average and because their source data likely includes a lot of smaller companies which pay less than bigger enterprises.
I just listed the source I used. You are fee to question it. But I think most would agree that source to be more reliable than simple anecdotal stories about ones own limited experiences which have zero ability to be vetted. Believe what you like.
Neither of us know what data souces Dr Kaufman used to base his statement on. But I would bet a lot that your experiences were not it.
fjablo wrote:
Ok so what exactly did he say and where did he say it? I wasn't able to source the interview, but I'd be curious to read it or listen to it.
And what did you examine exactly? In the post I've reacted to you did some calculations based on average gross salary and concluded Leica's were indeed priced around 2.5x the monthly average, or did I get that wrong? If I didn't get that wrong then my point is that this calculation doesn't make much sense in this context. Someone earning the average salary would have to save up for years to afford a Leica..
..which then brings us to "professionals" and "company executives". Would love to understand what you mean by those terms, esp. the former.
Personally, I'd define "executives" as (Senior / Executive) Vice President and C-Level of bigger enterprises or Managing Directors of small enterprises (the latter usually 1-3 individuals per company, often including the owner). That's a gross income of 150k+, more often above 200k. And before you get hung up on compensation vs salary: typically around 30% variable pay, but usually in cash, not equity. Monthly net income in this group would be around 10k which - even on household level - puts you in the top 1%. We could agree that people in this group could likely afford a Leica and are a key (but not the only) target audience for them
You are free to try and find it. As I originally said I watched the video and reported what heard. No time to search, but it is out there somewhere.
You define things the way you please. I just did a search based on the terms that Dr Kaufmann used and a few reports came up that all pretty much agreed with each other. Those reports didn't define them the way you are doing that is clear. Your definition as described by you put your sample in the top 1%. By any use of the term "average" your view of Dr Kaufmann's statement doesn't fit.
Dec 22, 2024 at 11:51 AM
Previous versions of 1bwana1's message #16712654 « Why are Leicas so expensive? »
