I'm one of those.

I happened to apply for a programming job at one of the larger financial risk management software producers after seeing their adverts looking for developers.
At the time, I didn't even know how big they are, what they are really doing, what I could learn from them. All I knew was that I absolutely had to apply. "Anything with finance" earns a good bit more than just about any other industry after all, unless your field is extremely specialized - and somehow the brightest guys usually fight for the latter spots. Way out of my league.

In my case, I just happened to have had the majority of my post-grad study topics' and developing experience focus on EXACTLY the paradigms and methodologies used by the company in their technical test. I went through it without much sweat and wondered how the second interview would go, expecting a tougher grilling.

That second test never came, I got the job offered, took it and learned a lot. Only a year later I found out I apparently passed with one of the highest scores on that test they had seen to date. And, make no mistake, I am no more than an average developer. Of course, back then when I took the test, even less experienced (read: worse).

This comes with experience in my opinion. It's easy to state it like that with a few years of experience in your field but it's very difficult to have a clue of what is needed, where an edge is, or which skills will set you apart from the mob beforehand.

Once I realized I randomly fell into the right hands, I was in the position to figure out what could set me apart from others, how to identify niches, how to focus my skills to fit those, and finally, what potential clients/employers look for in exactly those candidates.
I did that, and it started to pay off after a few years. Again, I am not smarter than the average guy, neither do I work much harder. I just followed the topics that were most interesting to me and not an obvious dead end career- and earnings-potential-wise.

By now, I can comfortably land a contract in the "low 6 figures." But it took me some time... even with the very lucky start, close to 10 years' experience by now, working as a developer in the finance world with highly specialized skills, and some intelligently tailored peripheral skills (or so I hope) to boost my profile.

Edit: Erm, just to clarify the years, not close to 10 in my "field", more like 6. But 10 years of developing overall.

Whoa, this ended in a wall of text. Apologies in advance. Cliff notes follow.


Cliff notes (TL;DR): I am one of the ones getting lucky early. But I believe it takes some experience to be able to see which direction will take you to the higher income levels. Go out there, get started, do what you like, and excel in what you enjoy. Unless it's a dead end direction you'll be just fine.

I also noticed another thing:

18 year olds think making 100K is guaranteed for them
21 year olds think making 100K should be possible
And by the time you're 30, about 6.61% think it's doable. (wiki stat from above.)

haha yeh - I was definitely one of those kids in my teens saying Id have a million by 30....reality sucks

the truth is 100K isn't much. and i live in the midwest.

to earn it you have to either A: invent/own a business, B: work your ass off, C: acquire a ****-ton of student loan debt. I chose B and C.

Get your loans paid off.

Follow my plan:
-Live like you're still in college
-Don't buy a house
-Save money by never getting dates with girls

I feel this way as well -- in fact I think it is impossible to live on that. Then I look at income statistics and realize the vast majority live on a lot less so by definition it must be possible.

Historically that probably isn't your wisest decision. May be even more unwise now considering the housing market has most of the downside beat out of it.

explain please

In America the median home value has averaged a 6% gain every year since 1963. And that is including this recent downturn. Combine that with leverage and tax deductions and you have a recipe for profit.

That being said, I do realize there are certain cities where the math says it is better to rent.

I see, thanks....

edit: tbh, housing looks to me like a beta/market return since all people poses it. So I'm kind a skeptical on that matter....

$100k is not that hard if you are willing to make sacrifices to get it, including spending thousands of hours of your free time learning important skills, sacrificing time with SO's/friends, learning valuable skills, hardcore self reflection, learn to control your emotions, become very personable, moving anywhere in the country for your job. These are things potentially anyone could do but most will draw the line somewhere and then the difficulty will go way up.

If you do these things you can make much more than $100k, I'm sure there are some shortcuts like going into finance or something but this is a safe bet and you don't need things like a college degree / debt. If you make yourself significantly more valuable than the top 6% getting paid like the 6% is pretty inevitable.

out of interest, which ones? any reading suggestions?

Couldn't tell you exactly which ones since I live in the midwest where almost every place is smarter to buy. Most likely a few on either coast and maybe some in Canada.

Reading suggestions about what? Real estate?

There were more, but I think it's reduced to mainly New York and San Francisco. There's a chance the Chicago/LA/others are in there too.

The OP is asking how he can make $100k/year, so not buying a house would be very beneficial in his case.