Enough's enough

Friday was the last day of work for some of my colleagues in the press room. They weren't laid off -- they hit the Pick Six jackpot at the end of last month.

Office scuttlebutt says the $10 million payout, split three ways, works out to about $95,000 a year for the next 26 years. For all but a handful of people in the building, this was perceived as More Than Enough to live on while still setting much of it aside for the future. The youngest of the lucky winners, I've heard, is staying at his job for a while longer to lock in the benefits that come after 20 years. (He works hard, but he's good at his job and he doesn't hate it, so why not?)

I mention this because, for these three men, and for almost all of us who work with them, $10 million is a life-changing sum, even split three ways and spread out over 26 years. Yes, $95,000 a year is regarded by most Americans as a life-altering fortune. It is, after all, more than twice the median income for American households ($44,389 for a household of four in 2004).

But some American households aren't impressed by such a sum. Around 16 percent of American households are already making more than $100,000 a year, so for them $95,000 doesn't sound like a quit-your-job-and-go-fishing kind of number. And for the 2.3 million or so American millionaires, $95,000 a year probably sounds like a horrifically austere lifestyle.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden stumbled across a discussion among such folk in a New York magazine article extolling the addictively voyeuristic pleasures of the chat rooms at UrbanBaby.com. This excerpt caught Teresa's eye:

One night, a woman posts this seemingly non-rhetorical question: “If your [husband] had a 5mil trust fund would you stay home? 2 kids and [husband] does not work.” Responses range from a deadpan “uh, yeah” to “someone has to work ... 5 mil is not enough for forever.” A long thread branching off examines the premise that a trust fund providing interest of $350,000 to $500,000 is not enough to live on. “Not enough for whom?” asked one poster incredulously. Another poster replies, “Me. We currently live a 15k/month lifestyle, net, with 1 [child] and no school costs” -- and then promptly summarizes her expenses for an invisible audience: “7k rent, 1k PT sitter, eating out 1.5–2k, utilities 500, travelling 2k, clothing 1k, out and about ‘cash’ 1k.”

Here we have a group of people convinced that $500,000 a year is "not enough to live on." They would not understand the grateful joy of my fortunate colleagues in the press room. They wouldn't consider $95,000 a year as "striking it rich," but as "striking it poor."

I don't begrudge those millionaires their millions any more than I begrudge the lucky guys in the pressroom their tens of thousands. The trouble comes when these extraordinary people cease to realize they're extraordinary -- when elites fail to realize that they are elites.

These UrbanMommies who think that $500,000 a year is "not enough to live on" may be living in a deluded fantasy world, but they have the resources -- culturally, economically, politically -- to make that fantasy more real, to create a world in which it's harder than it was before to live on $500,000, or $95,000, or $44,389 a year.

It's clear from the New York article that this delusion isn't working out very well for them. It's not working out very well for the rest of us either.

Addendum:

Median household income for New York City (2004): $60,765

Median household income for San Francisco (2004): $60,031

Comments

[Angelika]

Duane wrote: There really couldn't be a more pointless discussion than this one. It's just providing all of us with the opportunity to envy someone else for working a little harder or making better choices.

There are a lot of people who work very hard and don't make much money. I doubt there are many nurses, police officers, fire-fighters, school-teachers or dairy workers in this country who make 100k or anything close to that. Presuming they don't earn as much, because they are not working harder is, presumptious and insulting. - And we better be happy, that they chose to work in their jobs, rather than calling it a bad choice. This society could do well with a few less CEOs, but losing nurses and teachers would really hurt.

[Duane]

There are a lot of people who work very hard and don't make much money. I doubt there are many nurses, police officers, fire-fighters, school-teachers or dairy workers in this country who make 100k or anything close to that. Presuming they don't earn as much, because they are not working harder is, presumptious and insulting. - And we better be happy, that they chose to work in their jobs, rather than calling it a bad choice. This society could do well with a few less CEOs, but losing nurses and teachers would really hurt.

This is like a strange acid trip through stupidland. It is quite possible for a family with a nurse or fire-fighter or police office to bring down 100K/year. Dual incomes, knowwhatImean? Even more so when the working couple has made tenure and seniority at their jobs and have reached their peak earning years.

It is ridiculous to compare a working family with dual incomes to a CEO single-handedly pulling down millions per year. Can you class warriors get some clarity on this issue?

[Jen]

Duane,

Angelika's point is still a sound one. The implication that those who earn more do so on the basis of working harder or making better choices, with no acknowledgement of the other institutional forces at work is really quite offensive, which is fairly clearly implied from "It's just providing all of us with the opportunity to envy someone else for working a little harder or making better choices.". Angelika wasn't talking about families with that income, but individuals, given she was addressing your point, as quoted. To bring in points you've discussed elsewhere in the thread and act as though she was responding to those is just bad argument. Talk about an acid trip.

[Duane]

Angelika's point is still a sound one. The implication that those who earn more do so on the basis of working harder or making better choices, with no acknowledgement of the other institutional forces at work is really quite offensive, which is fairly clearly implied from "It's just providing all of us with the opportunity to envy someone else for working a little harder or making better choices.". Angelika wasn't talking about families with that income, but individuals, given she was addressing your point, as quoted. To bring in points you've discussed elsewhere in the thread and act as though she was responding to those is just bad argument. Talk about an acid trip.

Saying someone makes a better choice isn't saying someone else made a bad choice. If we are just going to universally condemn folks for making what we think is too much money, then we are judging them solely on their incomes and if we are judging them solely on their incomes and they make a lot more than we do, then it is likely they made better choices - as those choices apply to "high" income.

[Beth]

I've never tried to support a family of four, so I don't know how much it costs, but keep in mind that per Fred, the median income for an American family of four is around $44k. If $100k really is a reasonable minimum, then this country is in dire straits.

[Angelika]

Thanks, Jen, for backing me up!

Duane, I'm not condemning anyone for making a lot of money. I was just pointing out that it is extremely arrogant of well-earning people to presume, everyone making less money is working less hard than they.

In our society, the ammount on the paycheck is not a good parameter to make any statements about how much or hard people work or whether their work is of high social importance. In fact, many people who work in indespensable professions (like in agriculture, health care, trash removal and education) are often not well paid. Personally, I'd wish that would change, even if that means more taxes for me.

Having grown up in a very well-to-do part of my hometown, I know that a good many people who make a lot of money don't just hold their jobs, because they are so incredibly hard working or made so utterly smart choices, but also because they had a lot of luck or came from already rich families to back them up. I don't begrudge their luck, but I feel a bit of humility would look good on them.

[LL]

RE "If $100k really is a reasonable minimum, then this country is in dire straits."

I think large sections of the country are in dire straits. Supposedly, lots of us are one catastrophic illness or job loss away from homelessness. I know I would be. I have some savings, which makes me better off than most people apparently, but rent, car, etc. plus medical expenses would eat that up quickly, as it would for most people. People don't want to think about how precarious their situation really is. They think if they have a house that goes up in value every year (though some of them are starting to lose value, rather than gain), they're in the money, but having $300,000 cash in the bank to draw on and having a house that's supposedly worth $300,000 are two very different things. If you sell your house for more than what you paid (not a guarantee, no matter what realtors say), you've still gotta have a place to live. And if you live in NY or CA or FL or any number of places, $100,000 a year for a family of four can be barely making it. $100,000 a year where I live in TX would be a huge increase for me, but I don't own a house or an expensive car (it's a 5 year old Toyota Echo) and I don't have kids or large medical expenses. A lot of people are barely making it on the median, and we don't like to talk about it because it's depressing to think of how many people in the land of opportunity are not doing so great on pay that's above the minimum wage, much less AT the minimum wage. I have a sister with 7 kids (in Oklahoma). Don't know how they pay for everything, cause I don't think they're pulling in $100,000 total (her and spouse). I assume lots of debt. They've already declared bankruptcy once.

if we accept 100k as a base-line for one person

I know you take this as given, Duane, so my question as to how it expratoplates to a family of fout seems to prove your point. But it really, truly doesn't, because 100k as a base-line is way too high. Maybe it's fine for you, on Mommy's basement, but for those of worried because our companies are BRAGGING about sending jobs overseas, and, knowing, even so, that we have it good, 100k is a pipe dream.

[Duane]

I don't begrudge their luck, but I feel a bit of humility would look good on them.

So, in a thread arbitrarily trashing folks who make more money on average, you'd like those folks to show a little humility, after insulting them by suggesting their hard work is luck?

[Duane]

I've never tried to support a family of four, so I don't know how much it costs, but keep in mind that per Fred, the median income for an American family of four is around $44k. If $100k really is a reasonable minimum, then this country is in dire straits.

Could we agree that all of those families who live in poverty, whose children don't get desirable care, nutrition, shelter, etc. should have more income to life them out of poverty?

And if we could magically make that happen, what would happen to the median? Do you think it would go up?

It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that a family shouldn't be taking care of their children on more than the average when the average is so low because many children aren't getting taken care of properly.

In fact, it seems downright stupid.

[Duane]

if we accept 100k as a base-line for one person

I know you take this as given, Duane, so my question as to how it expratoplates to a family of fout seems to prove your point. But it really, truly doesn't, because 100k as a base-line is way too high. Maybe it's fine for you, on Mommy's basement, but for those of worried because our companies are BRAGGING about sending jobs overseas, and, knowing, even so, that we have it good, 100k is a pipe dream.

Posted by: | Jul 28, 2006 at 08:37 PM

We can agree of this: if I had written that, I wouldn't have signed it either.

[Duane]

Duane, no, I think 100k is a reasonable amount for a family of four to get by on too. (There's no contradiction between 'any reasonable person can live on 100k' and 'any reasonable family of four can live on 100k')
If you start talking about much bigger families, or multi-generation families, or families with serious medical problems... sure, 100k will eventually start getting tight. But two adults, two kids, on 100k? Most manage on a lot less.

Ray, did it occur to you that families making around a 100K/year have managed on a lot less? And probably for a long time? And will most likely do so again?

[hapax]

Duane, I'm not particularly an advocate of class warfare, but you seem to be suggesting that people's incomes depend solely upon their "hard work" and "better choices." That may be true for individuals -- it is demonstrably NOT true for lottery winners -- and uncountable economics studies indicate that income depends upon a person's "good choice" to be born to parents of a particular race, class, education level, and location.

But this whole thread is beginning to look like an anecdote war. Instead of asking "how much is enough for me" or "for you" or "for this hard working bus driver with six kids" or "for this single corporate lawyer in Manhattan", perhaps the question should be "how much is enough for ANYONE?"

It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure it can be answered.

[Duane]

Duane, I'm not particularly an advocate of class warfare, but you seem to be suggesting that people's incomes depend solely upon their "hard work" and "better choices."

Hapax, I appreciate you trying to massage my opinion into something you can more easily knock down. However, I was pretty clear earlier on when I replied with this:

Saying someone makes a better choice isn't saying someone else made a bad choice. If we are just going to universally condemn folks for making what we think is too much money, then we are judging them solely on their incomes and if we are judging them solely on their incomes and they make a lot more than we do, then it is likely they made better choices - as those choices apply to "high" income.

[Duane]

perhaps the question should be "how much is enough for ANYONE?"

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think the answer may be MYOB again. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that you might have that discussion with your family in the context of your income and budget, but it seems way over the top for you to decide how much my family warrants.

Truth is, class-warrior arguments are so easy to knock down, we don't need to go back to the MYOB well.:)

[dr ngo]

I have no opinion (that I wish to voice now) on the basic question, but count me among those who find it ridiculous and offensive to assume that those who make more money necessarily either "work harder" or make "better choices." Besides all of the obvious exceptions - "legacies" of actual wealth or access to education, lottery winners, or (on the downside) those whose lives and livelihoods have been destroyed by natural catastrophes or political-military developments beyond their control - may I submit one further anecdotal case: myself.

I recently retired after 30 years at essentially the same career. I changed jobs only when compelled to; I was at certain critical junctures lucky to be employed at all. During the first 12 of those 30 years I was (IMHO) badly underpaid, making as little as $12,000 a year. During the last 18 I was (IMHO) rather overpaid, making as much as $150,000 a year. In the "fat years" I did not work harder or make better choices than in the lean years. Why on earth should I assume that those whose "fat years" have been even fatter, and lasted longer, are worthier than I?

[hapax]

We-e-ell, no, it isn't a case of MYOB -- unless we assume that necessary resources (food, shelter, health care) are infinite. If they are limited, and access to them is not guaranteed, then human nature being what it is, "them what has" (like me, for example) are always going to try and amass more than they need, and "them what has not" is going to go short. I don't think there's any sort of legislation that will fix that problem(although I wouldn't mind a different tax structure than we currently have), but I don't think it helps to pretend the pie will just keep getting bigger, either.

You seem to assume that I'm "passing judgment" or "condemning" anyone, which I'm not -- it's nice to have money, it's nicer to have lots of money, I wish I had more. But maybe I'm too stupid to understand how a statement like "if we are judging them solely on their incomes and they make a lot more than we do, then it is likely they made better choices - as those choices apply to "high" income" means anything other than a person's income depends more upon their own choices and actions than upon the circumstances they were born into. I certainly don't condemn or attack anyone for being lucky enough to be born to white upper class educated professional Americans (for example), but I don't think they need to be congratulated for their "better choices", either.

I'm almost certainly misunderstanding you, but it's not deliberate. Would you accept that I'm NOT trying to "knock you down", but sincerely trying to understand your point, and try to explain it differently?

[Duane]

As someone who never finished college and therefore doesn't get the oft-touted "degree pay boost", I consider those folks that finished college to have made a better choice than me, and they certainly worked harder.

(In fact, I've seen many of you lording your college educations over others in these threads. Should we put a cap on how much knowledge you are allowed to horde? After all, I might have gotten my feelings hurt by you once. And growing up in a doomsday cult in a poor black neighborhood _no lie!_ I didn't have the same access to educational resources as you.)

Starting a family at 22 was probably a bit early in hindsight. Someone that was able to put off matters of the heart until better financial foundations were laid certainly made a better choice than me in terms of the financial payoff.

Spending my 20s and early 30s making around $20K a year, I worked for a lot of folks that didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain. But they had the sense to make a career choice and stick with it, which is why I was working for them. But I had a level 42 Nubian Necromancer in EverQuest, so what the hell right?

We can toss out a million valid exceptions why some folks are at the top of the economic ladder and some folks are under the ladder, but the RULE in this country is that if you want it bad enough and you work for it hard enough and you make smart choices, you will get ahead.

You class warriors want to attribute anyone doing better than average as the result of privilege or built-in advantage they had over you, or others. I'm just not that cynical.

[Jesurgislac]

Duane: but the RULE in this country is that if you want it bad enough and you work for it hard enough and you make smart choices, you will get ahead.

No, that's the myth in the US. It's not the "rule". It's rather silly to claim it is.

[Duane]

No, that's the myth in the US. It's not the "rule". It's rather silly to claim it is.

Like I said, I'm not that cynical.

[Jesurgislac]

Duane: Like I said, I'm not that cynical.

No. Judging only by comments to this post, I would say that you are either cynical and horrifyingly callous, or else terribly ignorant and thoughtless. Or all four, possibly: cynical enough to think that the millions who live at poverty level all their lives do so because they're unambitious/lazy/stupid: callous enough not to care: ignorant of working conditions in the US: and thoughtless, literally, because you pride yourself on holding this cynical and ignorant opinion and calling the people who are better informed, and care more, "cynical".

[Duane]

No. Judging only by comments to this post, I would say that you are either cynical and horrifyingly callous, or else terribly ignorant and thoughtless. Or all four, possibly: cynical enough to think that the millions who live at poverty level all their lives do so because they're unambitious/lazy/stupid: callous enough not to care: ignorant of working conditions in the US: and thoughtless, literally, because you pride yourself on holding this cynical and ignorant opinion and calling the people who are better informed, and care more, "cynical".

Ah, so YOU CARE MORE, that's why you're trashing folks who make a little more on average. That makes about as much sense as anything you rant in these threads when you decide to be ugly.

Well hell, the lot of you are so smart, talented and beautiful that the game has to be rigged to hold you back. :)

[hapax]

Absolutely not in my case, Duane. I freely admit that the game has been rigged to push me forward. Because of my background, and family, I had the inestimable privilege to choose a career I love, but pays very very badly, secure in the knowledge tht I have a cushion to fall back on and that my children will never lack for education or security, let alone food and shelter. Sure, I had to work hard to get the education that qualified me, and the limited financial rewards and 24/7 schedule means there's a lot of material stuff I have to forego -- but I wouldn't change it for anything, and most days I utter a prayer of gratitude for my tremendous good luck.

You are absolutely right that our choices can influence the amount of income we earn. I don't think that anyone here would seriously argue that (all other things being equal) choosing to play games all day rather than go to college *will* or *should* result in the same financial result. But perhaps because of my enormous good fortune, I can't help being aware of the way in which all other things are NOT equal. Many socioeconomic studies have shown it. My daily newspaper shows it: upper class white male executives who cheat and steal end up retiring early to Caribbean mansions; poor immigrant laborers who work ninety hour weeks in the fields are lucky to end up owning their own homes. Religious scriptures teach that it has always been thus: "the righteous suffer while the wicked flourish."

Maybe this all is cynical; but I don't think it's "class warfare." Most cynics, after all, are frustrated idealists.

[Duane]

My daily newspaper shows it: upper class white male executives who cheat and steal end up retiring early to Caribbean mansions; poor immigrant laborers who work ninety hour weeks in the fields are lucky to end up owning their own homes. Religious scriptures teach that it has always been thus: "the righteous suffer while the wicked flourish."

Maybe this all is cynical; but I don't think it's "class warfare." Most cynics, after all, are frustrated idealists.

We probably agree on more than we disagree. I'm simply suggesting that 100K isn't "flourishing". If that sounds beyond the pale, consider the case of "Mitch and Bobbie", a couple with whom I went to high school and who recently began making around 100K/year:

Mitch dropped out of high school and bounced around from painting job to painting job. Meanwhile Bobbie worked full-time at low-paying jobs while she went to college. Eventually she got her English degree and began teaching in the local public schools. At the same time, Mitch began pressure-washing houses on the side to augment his $8/hour painting income. He salvaged and fixed up equipment to use. He taught himself how to weld so he could create custom wands. He developed his own cleaning system to create better looking finished houses and was soon too busy washing houses to paint.

Mitch works from sunup to sundown six days a week. Bobbie pretty much raises their three children in addition to teaching full-time. Bobbie has stayed in the teaching system long enough to bring home a very good salary. Any day of the week in 100 degree weather, you will find Mitch on top of a two story house, precariously stepping down a wet roof, hoping today isn't the day he falls.

Did Mitch get lucky? Sure, he hasn't fallen yet. But that's not because he's white or a Freemason. Would Mitch and Bobbie fit into your "wicked flourishing" worldview? Absolutely not. They are just a regular American couple with kids working their asses off to provide for their family.

Was there some built-in system advantage that allowed Mitch to corner the market on good pressure-washing? I dunno. Why don't we ask his primary competition, Mexican illegals, who work outside of the system and can therefore charge much less than Mitch? The same advantages that existed for Mitch clearly exist for migrant laborers.

And Mitch and Bobbie vote Republican, I might add. Occasionally, I feel like I'm making some inroads with them but Mitch will point at threads like these and tell me there is no way he is ever letting "those folks" control his fate. Thanks!

[Jesurgislac]

Duane, inventing a little fairy story about a couple you claim you know is just not terribly convincing. Too bad. Try linking to facts instead of making up stories.

[Duane]

Duane, inventing a little fairy story about a couple you claim you know is just not terribly convincing. Too bad. Try linking to facts instead of making up stories.

That you think it is a "fairy story" says more about you than you will ever know.

[Jesurgislac]

Duane: That you think it is a "fairy story" says more about you than you will ever know.

Er, Duane? There are no facts attached to this story of yours. I'll call it a myth if you like: the same myth you asserted was a "rule".

[bulbul]

but count me among those who find it ridiculous and offensive to assume that those who make more money necessarily either "work harder" or make "better choices."
Me too. Being as I am at some sort of crossroads in my career, the more I look around, the more truth I find in the good ol' Preacher's words:

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all.

[Duane]

Er, Duane? There are no facts attached to this story of yours. I'll call it a myth if you like: the same myth you asserted was a "rule".

And that makes it just as valid or invalid as any anecdote posted thus far in this thread. Feel free to start attacking the other storytellers. Me, I gotta go pushmow my lawn of privilege and weed my vegetable garden of entitlement.

It's a great year for tomatoes!

[Duane]

(How do ordinary Americans get by without a groundskeeper?)

[wintermute]

Saying someone makes a better choice isn't saying someone else made a bad choice.

It is saying that the person making the lower income made a worse choice, unless there's some new meaning of "better" that I'm not aware of...

[bulbul]

choosing to play games all day rather than go to college *will* or *should* result in the same financial result.
Will? Not necessarily. Might? Yes. Look at progaming - CounterStrike or Starcraft. Is it ok if it does? Yes. Is it ok if the guys who make it big in the progaming world brag about how they worked harder than me? No and let me just add that if they do, I'm gonna whoop their asses. The problem is, Duane, that working hard does not guarantee success. Luck is the key. And I have scores of stories to prove it.

[Jesurgislac]

Duane: And that makes it just as valid or invalid as any anecdote posted thus far in this thread.

Most of which had more facts attached to them than your little fairy tale, and I see you were busy condemning those more factual stories as "stupid" all the way down the thread. Interesting double standard you have there, Duane.

[Duane]

I'm really not as comfortable as you all universally declaring that folks earning above average didn't do anything to earn it and don't deserve it outside of freak luck. I assure you that the folks who are working for their money and providing for their families do not, by and large, consider it the result of luck. Many of them commute long hours and spend time away from family.

In fact, I daresay everyone that provides for their families makes sacrifices here and there. It seems a little odd to paint the ones who aren't providing well as heroes while damning the ones who are.

I don't think the way to lift others up is to tear everyone else down. But if its working for you, and your class warfare message is winning you political clout, by all means continue..

[Amanda]

If someone can struggle with a $100k income, what of the 84% who make far less than that?

I thought that was the point. Not whether $100k is luxurious and easy or not, but the fact that most people will never approach even half of that income, and if you are spending your time trying to convince people to sympathize for the poor people who struggle with their six figures, perhaps you can extend your sympathy a little further to people who struggle to make five figures.

Most of this argument seems pointless.

[Duane]

Most of which had more facts attached to them than your little fairy tale, and I see you were busy condemning those more factual stories as "stupid" all the way down the thread. Interesting double standard you have there, Duane.

I didn't call anyone's anecdotes stupid and I don't have a double standard. Feel free to check the thread. I know you're a bit high-strung and tend to lose grounding on these discussions that you are passionate about (the torture/abortion debate comes to mind) but there is no need to start lying. If you've got a case, it can be made honestly.

[Jesurgislac]

"This is like a strange acid trip through stupidland."

Already forgotten you said that?

I don't think the way to lift others up is to tear everyone else down. But if its working for you, and your class warfare message is winning you political clout, by all means continue.
No offence, but this statement is very ... er ... Scottesque.
And more to the point: who is tearing who down?

[bulbul]

I'm really not as comfortable as you all universally declaring that folks earning above average didn't do anything to earn it and don't deserve it outside of freak luck.
IIRC, no one is. I am certainly not saying that they don't deserve it. All I said luck was the key, not that it was the only component of success.

Oh and that anonymous one was me.

[Duane]

"This is like a strange acid trip through stupidland."

Already forgotten you said that?

I certainly haven't: that wasn't a response to an anecdote. It was a response to the idea that nurses, police officers, fire-fighters, school-teachers or dairy workers couldn't be part of a household that brought in 100K/year.

[Duane]

don't think the way to lift others up is to tear everyone else down. But if its working for you, and your class warfare message is winning you political clout, by all means continue.
No offence, but this statement is very ... er ... Scottesque.
And more to the point: who is tearing who down?

Posted by: | Jul 29, 2006 at 06:36 PM

I'm really not as comfortable as you all universally declaring that folks earning above average didn't do anything to earn it and don't deserve it outside of freak luck.
IIRC, no one is. I am certainly not saying that they don't deserve it. All I said luck was the key, not that it was the only component of success.

Oh and that anonymous one was me.

Bulbul, I appreciate the effort to tar me with the stench of Scott. Seriously. I myself have backspaced over that particular charge as it pertains to others in this thread more than a few times.

As you've come to this thread quite late, I hope you can forgive me for being petered out by this time. Clearly I'm not changing any minds and no one has changed mine. So let's just agree to disagree. :)

[bulbul]

Truth is, when you are young and single, you can likely get by on close to nothing because you've always got mom and dad to freeload off of.
So let's recap: CEO's deserve their millions, because they work hard and made all the right choices. And young and single people are freeloaders. Nice one, Duane.

[bulbul]

Bulbul, I appreciate the effort to tar me with the stench of Scott. Seriously.
I am really sorry, but words like "your class warfare message is winning you political clout" reak of Scottism. The only thing that's missing is the word "liberal" and a backhanded reference to FDR.

So let's just agree to disagree. :)
Well, we could, but why do all the debates always have to end this way? Have we learned nothing from the meanwhile legendary empathy/abortion/torture debate?

[Duane]

So let's recap: CEO's deserve their millions, because they work hard and made all the right choices. And young and single people are freeloaders. Nice one, Duane.

I never once even spoke of CEOs. I simply suggested that 100K/year wasn't a stratospherical sum of money and was a lot closer to the median than to folks pulling down millions.

[Jesurgislac]

Duane: I simply suggested that 100K/year wasn't a stratospherical sum of money and was a lot closer to the median than to folks pulling down millions.

And it was pointed out to you - repeatedly through this thread - that the vast majority of people in the US don't make anything like 100K a year.

Median US family income is about 40K a year, in fact. (You can see this graphically represented here.)

[Jesurgislac]

You can also see median family incomes on a state-by-stage page here (2004 census data). Yes, 100K per year is "closer" to the median than millions: but you can see that, in most states, most families never have that much.

[Duane]

Yes, 100K per year is "closer" to the median than millions

I accept your concession.

[Spherical Time]

I'd just like to point out that most people on this thread haven't done anything even remotely close to "universally condemn folks for making what we think is too much money." Instead they've pointed out that anyone that can think that "100K/year isn't really that much money" isn't putting things in perspective.

They're saying that 100K/year is a lot of money, and I tend to agree with them. I've been a part of a family that made easily three times that in a year, but I would never say that $100,000 isn't a lot of money. For most families, 100,000 is a huge amount of money.

Of course, I can't have the same point of view. My father got sick and lost his job, and I had to drop out of my expensive liberal arts college and move back to a state school, and now I've moved back home to help my mother cover expenses. She'll still have to sell the house, but that won't be for another year or so, we hope.

You can call me a class warrior, if you want to, Duane, because I think that there are classes, and that there is a certain amount of entitlement that a lot of families have. I have similarly unflattering names that I can call you, but I won't (at least not in this thread). I disagree with your position, and that's that.

[Matt Austern]

I think most people who make $100k/year or more do work hard to earn it. (That includes me, yes.) But then, I also think that most people who earn much less than that work hard for a living too. The assumption that people with less money must not work hard strikes me as utterly bizarre.

[Jesurgislac]

Duane: I accept your concession.

*grin* I guess when you have so little, Duane, you have to make the most of what you get. In a strictly arithmetical sense, yes, $40K is nearer to $100K than $100K is to $1M. In a practical sense, however, to a family trying to get by on the US median income of $42K a year, $100K is wealth - and $1M a year is an implausible fantasy.

Matt A: The assumption that people with less money must not work hard strikes me as utterly bizarre.

People who have never had less money than $100K a year - and never had to worry about how they might have less money - think like this.