Poll: Do people really need $100,000/£100,000 a year salleries?

[brodie21]

well, hopefully i can get a job at the FAA, where last i heard, the starting salary for my major was 120K/year

so yes, 100k+ salaries are awesome. thats how america works, your standing in society is based on what you do, what you have, and what you can buy

 

[Numachuka]

The title pretty much speaks for itself but I would like to know what you think. I don't come from a background where either of my parents, nor both their salleries combined, earned £100,000 but I had a good childhood and a decent education and given the current economic climate I'm inclined to believe that the hefty sallery makes people complacent and bigotted

Oh please, you know you'd love it if you get one.

 

[geekRAGE]

i think any sports player that makes millions of dollars per year is absolutely retarded. i have a right to complain about it too because i do not support them at all. no buying tickets to games, merchandise, dont watch the games or anything. its the people that support them in every manner then turn around and complain about their salaries that annoy me; you're the one adding to the problem.

 

[Canid117]

A more accurate question would be "Do people really need $100,000/£62126.94?"

The answer is no but do we really need TVs? Video Games? Bacon?

 

[Atmos Duality]

In a world with perfectly competitive markets, and a consistent distribution of resources, it wouldn't be necessary.
Of course, given the HUGE range of diversity in economic living conditions and markets at large, there are instances where 100k/year, even under the most "ideal" circumstances will not cut it.

Then there's the theory where money only holds real value for the wealthy because there are many others who are poor in comparison (primarily as a social perception)...but that's beyond the scope of this topic.

 

[acosn]

Yes. In a world with capitalism as the main driving force there are jobs that legitimately need high salaries to attract people. You'd see a lot less doctors and lawyers, especially in today's climate, if they weren't well paid jobs.

 

[saruman31]

Where i live people with university earn on average 4000$/year. Try living with that instead of 100k and see how it feels.

 

[SturmDolch]

Check out this video:


How much money you earn is up to the company. What you do with it is your problem. If a person who earned $200k per year wanted to, they could donate $100k of it to cancer research or something. Or they could keep it for themselves and improve their quality of life. Neither decision is wrong.

 

[Koeryn]

I chose option 2 and 3.
I know I'd like to make that kind of money but I probably wouldn't even spend most of it.

I want my fucking flying car, damnit. Now, the 100,000,000+ a year that some sports stars get is absolute bullshit and they need to cut that shit back.

Well a flying IS a worthy investment, but it amazes me that some of those people still manage to find a way to bankrupt themselves. Does NO ONE trust the Swiss with their money anymore?

What can I say? Some folk are talented!

 

[manythings]

100k seems to be an amount that will let you be comfortable but not excessively rich.

i dont think money changes you, it just allows you to be who you really are.

Science says otherwise. The current thinking is as your wage increases you enter into different societal groups based on your income (i.e. richer areas of cities or whatever) and become exposed to their habits. The part of you that wants to fit it wants the things they have, or better just to present dominance over them, so that you can increase your standing.

The more money you get the more retarded bullshit you'll piss it away on just to show how awesome you are.

Not 100% sure I know the research you're referring to. In fact, some clever guys over at Princeton came out with an interesting paper last September [http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09/07/1519221/Researchers-Say-Happiness-Costs-75k] that pretty much implies people are increasingly un-happy as their yearly wage drops further and further below 75k, but above that there's no measurable difference. Kinda like a plateau rising up to 75k and then pretty much levelling off.

Being economically secure isn't the same as being happy because you are rich. I think dickens once said "A man who earns 20 pounds every year with a annual costs of one shilling less is in heaven, a man with one shilling more is in hell".

Nigerians are happier than americans: http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6629

As standard of life increase in China happiness is decreasing: http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/04/why-chinese-are-getting-richer-but-not.php

Increasing your standard of life depresses you: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0DEFD61538F934A3575AC0A9659C8B63

Incredibly rich people consider salary caps evil: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/nyregion/06pay.html?_r=2

Add to this the way people will spend money on vanity things a la "Keeping up with the Joneses".

 

[Risingblade]

No but we want it anyway and don't say you don't because you know you do :/

 

[Blaster395]

Whats with all the, lets face it, stereotyping and hatred of wealthy people these days? It seems that poorer people think that richer people are the scum of the earth, and richer people think poorer people are the scum of the Earth.
There needs to be a word for this... Opesism, Opes being the latin world for Wealth.

If you get paid 25,000 a year to sit on your ass and do nothing, and a job would pay you 25,000 a year, your gonna do nothing.

If there was no reason to do a difficult job that requires education, such as being a doctor, then nobody would bother with it. The number of people who have the skill to be a doctor is limited, therefore companies are willing to pay more for one. Meanwhile, anyone can flip a burger, therefore a job at a fast food place will pay poorly.

 

[Alpha Maeko]

Speaking as someone who lives in the world of capitalism, I say that if your business strategies create an empire, you earned it.

But, still... sometimes, I wish that there was a limit to how rich people can get.

To me, an ideal government would be half free and half communist. You're free to capitalize on your business strategies and go after whatever you want, but if you make more then $100,000 a year, the rest is given to a national fund that is used for every other citizen less fortunate. This doesn't apply to your company, only to how much you make as it's CEO. The company, if it makes more then $50,000,000 a year, gets the same treatment. It's excess earnings go to the national fund.

By having allot of successful companies and people in your nation, you also create a more wealthy bottom line for the lower and middle class.

The rich are still rich, but the lower class can still get by.

 

[Macrobstar]

Where i live people with university earn on average 4000$/year. Try living with that instead of 100k and see how it feels.

thats probably in proportion to the diffuculty and skill requirement of the job they do, theres a reason doctors earn a lot of money

 

[GeorgW]

People don't, I do.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

People don?t need a lot of things, this seems rather selective.
As long as they got the money through legal means it?s not really other people?s business. They managed to figure out how to earn such money. Good for them.

 

[googleboy]

The title pretty much speaks for itself but I would like to know what you think. I don't come from a background where either of my parents, nor both their salleries combined, earned £100,000 but I had a good childhood and a decent education and given the current economic climate I'm inclined to believe that the hefty sallery makes people complacent and bigotted

Bigoted? What on earth gives you that idea?

In my neighborhood, it is impossible to live and maintain a household on less than 120,000 USD/year. Where my grandfather lives (manhattan) it is impossible to live an maintain a household on less than 300,000 USD/year. Salary is, mostly, cost of living based. If I lived in Wyoming (wiki it) and made 100,000USD/year I would live like a king given the average price of a home (2000 sq.ft+) is less than 200,000USD.

I reject your premise of complacency and bigotry outright and will not dignify them with any further response other than: by your logic people who make less money are bigoted against people who make more money because they want it.

 

[Plurralbles]

When you work you're selling away risk.

If the firm makes no money, the workers are still paid. The CEO? Not so much.

Modern finance is all about getting money that is proportional to the level of risk involved not the work. And it's how it should be. I'm paying you 60K a year and helping with your insurance and 401K you have no right to demand me give you more than the market will pay for your labor. I take the difference. Everything's good.

100K really isn't that much at all. Not everyone is stupid enough to be satisfied with living in a small apartment living on Ramen. They want to explore the world and invest in the arts and be a humanitarian or just go everywhere in a private jet. How dare you question how other people spend their money.

 

[Chrono212]

Maybe if they are activly curing cancer/aids/war/etc and are the only person who can do that then maybe, but if you can't really quantify what you're doing then no, you shouldn't.
.>
If it's up for grabs I'll take it though X3