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

[Treblaine]

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

Yeah, those McDonald workers seem really motivated on their minimum wage no-tips.

This isn't a matter of "need" if communism has taught us anything humans can "survive" on the most meagre sustenance. But I don't think anyone would want that.

The thing is some jobs may not be hard, but only a select few are actually good enough for the job, and how are you going to get them working for your company/ministry if their talents are so rare, they are highly sought after.

Are you telling me if you have a really REALLY sought after skill and you were offered 100'000 a year you wouldn't take it?!?!? What if it was not only a job you were uniquely good at but you really liked this job too, it was in a field you had great interest in and that IS largely the reason that you have such valuable skills.

You might be a guitarist, you might be a banker, you might be a football player, you might be a doctor.

Also, I don't know about you but if I was undergoing invasive surgery I'd much rather my Surgeon be filthy rich than stressed about the mortgage while cutting out my appendix! People who are in critical jobs understandably are paid more.

If the lead singer of a band doesn't turn up to a concert = no concert. Understandably the lead singer gets a metric fuckton of money, till they have $100 million in the bank and think they can get away with turning up late.

The problem isn't people being paid a lot, the problem is people being paid a lot AND NOT SPENDING IT! If you have a high income and hoard all your money then you have less incentive to earn more, you get used to a more frugal living and you lose work incentive.

Look you don't have to spend it on ourself, Bill gates has donated BILLIONS to charities of HIS choice, that's right, no worries that the government will attach strings to aid with promises of bullshit like "abstinence only" birth-control/STD defence.

The problem is you have to live not just within your means but up to your means.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

They can. It depends on what they do. Inventor? Definitely. CEO? Arguable. Sports star? No.

I don't think you seem to understand why sports stars make as much as they do. Professional arenas of any field ratchet up the pay according to talent. Do you think we'd have people breaking home run records in a way that 20's era baseball players would never believe if we weren't offering massive contracts to them? Of course not. Not to mention that sports games attract thousands of fans and millions of dollars, if the players aren't getting a share of that, that is absolutely criminal, and they would strike until they started seeing a fair share of the booty. Is a doctor going to draw thousands of people into one place and make them empty their pockets? How about a lawyer? Or an inventor? People want to see sports stars, so they absolutely deserve to make every penny they get.

Also, we're talking about a profession where most players get a few years of playtime and then they're out for good. For most players, they won't make nearly enough to be able to live comfortably for the rest of their lives, they get thrown out on the street with no skills for the workplace.

Sorry, I have this thing where I hate professional sports and would rather see the concept disappear than having people like that make that kind of money.

Hey, I feel the sentiment. I've never understood sports culture, and even the ones that I do mildly enjoy, it isn't enough to follow more than one event in the entire year. It also is a little disheartening that brilliant artists can never draw crowds like a sporting event can. But hey, different tastes for different people.

 

[Dags90]

My parents did, if you consider what would be household income if they weren't they'd still probably make more than $100k/year. But we live in an expensive area, so we aren't "rich people" by local standards and a lot of the money goes to living expenses. There are a few privileges we've had though, like nice vacations, not having to buy my own car or pay for tuition. The last one is probably the biggest one for me, personally.

 

[Safaia]

My dad is currently unemployed but had some people in California offer him a job for 120,000 a year. That is not enough to support my entire family, including my grandmother, in California because the cost of living out there is so bloody high. Now that much in Utah would be plenty so location is a huge factor.

 

[Blitzwarp]

You're forgetting about location. Where you live can dictate the kind of salary you need to live a typical middle class life.
I agree though, I've never lived in a household that brought in more than 100,000 a year, and I still consider myself to have been a spoiled child.

Agreed with both points. £100,000 wouldn't allow you to live in London for a year, considering the high mortgages and insurance rates that dominate 'The City'. And my parents never pulled in more than £15,000 a year but I'm still the most spoiled and loved child I know. =]

 

[chunkeymonke]

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

2 things, one your saying a large amount of money makes people a bigot but you just made a mean generalization about an entire social class based on no real fact, two your poll needs an option of No they dont NEED it but they still earned it and deserve it

 

[Alpha Maeko]

Ya $100,000 a year is not a whole lot of money. I mean pretty much any job that requires a college or university degree starts at over $50,000 a year. Now that is just a starter job right out of school with next to no real experience at all. Now if thats what your starter jobs are paying and people should be getting raises every year its not that hard to imagine making $100,000. You get paid based on the difficulty, skill requirement and experience you have in your field. People who make that much money make that much for a dam good reason.


I also know plenty of people who make $250,000+ in a year and they do that by actually working. They deserve the money they make because they work hard for it.

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.

That means that people stop actually trying. If everything you make after $100,000 isnt yours to keep then why the hell should you work hard and make that extra money. No sense in busting your ass when you get absolutely no benefit from it, instead take half the year off. By the way $100,000 a year puts you in upper middle class range not rich.

Never said the idea was perfect, it's the ideal that we're all working towards the betterment of humanity, which doesn't change, regardless of how little or much you make. That's why you end up making more or striving to- not because of the money, but because of the ideal that your work keeps the world spinning.

 

[qeinar]

not really, but i come from a country where education is free. (up til a point where you need your own place to live, and you need to buy books..) but while you might say money is not everything, having more than you need really lightens the load, you tend to worry a lot more if your always short on cash.

 

[CJ1145]

I've been lucky enough to live in a home that earns $100k+ a year, and while we may not need it, it is DAMN nice to have. It's guaranteed me the ability to go to (almost) any college I want so that I can get the best education possible, and it lets me spoil my friends, because I'm a pretty generous guy with my cash. It's a great feeling when your classmate you don't even know too well has a birthday, and you still get them twenty bucks.

I admit that probably sounds really arrogant or something, I'm just saying that it's nice to be able to give to others.

 

[chunkeymonke]

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

Yeah, those McDonald workers seem really motivated on their minimum wage no-tips.

This isn't a matter of "need" if communism has taught us anything humans can "survive" on the most meagre sustenance. But I don't think anyone would want that.

The thing is some jobs may not be hard, but only a select few are actually good enough for the job, and how are you going to get them working for your company/ministry if their talents are so rare, they are highly sought after.

Are you telling me if you have a really REALLY sought after skill and you were offered 100'000 a year you wouldn't take it?!?!? What if it was not only a job you were uniquely good at but you really liked this job too, it was in a field you had great interest in and that IS largely the reason that you have such valuable skills.

You might be a guitarist, you might be a banker, you might be a football player, you might be a doctor.

Also, I don't know about you but if I was undergoing invasive surgery I'd much rather my Surgeon be filthy rich than stressed about the mortgage while cutting out my appendix! People who are in critical jobs understandably are paid more.

If the lead singer of a band doesn't turn up to a concert = no concert. Understandably the lead singer gets a metric fuckton of money, till they have $100 million in the bank and think they can get away with turning up late.

The problem isn't people being paid a lot, the problem is people being paid a lot AND NOT SPENDING IT! If you have a high income and hoard all your money then you have less incentive to earn more, you get used to a more frugal living and you lose work incentive.

Look you don't have to spend it on ourself, Bill gates has donated BILLIONS to charities of HIS choice, that's right, no worries that the government will attach strings to aid with promises of bullshit like "abstinence only" birth-control/STD defence.

The problem is you have to live not just within your means but up to your means.

you have read my mind good sir

 

[Ensiferum]

If they've earned it through years of hard work or the necessary education, then yes, absolutely.

 

[Kinguendo]

To live in downtown New York you need a lot more than that!!

You wouldnt if everything took a nose-dive... if everyone was paid what they actually earned prices would be forced to comply.

 

[erto101]

Do they need it? No. Do they deserve it? Sure. It's two very different questions. Ofc I live in a land where taxes are high so people with high income benefits all =)

 

[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".

Are you saying that having a bit more money will make you sadder? Or rich people have problems being happy?

Now, don't get me wrong, I realize that having lots of money doesn't bring lasting happiness. But anyone who has had to worry about paying bills or getting gas in their car can tell you that financial security does make someone happy, especially when they've been unstable for years. My dad only recently got a good-paying job, and he's happier than he's been in years. Today was his first paycheck, I might add.

What I'm saying is that having extra money can't bring lasting happiness, but if a person handles it right then it can bring a sort of satisfying financial contentedness that's, sadly, quite rare in this world.

The rich are often unhappy because they constantly work toward getting more money, it's the only thing they care about yet it doesn't ever make them any happier anymore. So they work and work and work and never pay attention to something that might make them more joyous (a wife, maybe, or companionship of some sort, a kid, some friends, etc.)

Also, I'm not saying that it's fair for sports players to earn millions per year, but many of you need to remember that most of them only play for a few years. They earn a lifetime's salary in a very short amount of time, and then usually quit. Remember that before you go slighting them again.

Correlation is not causation. Being financially stable doesn't make you happy, losing the stresses of being financially unstable allows you to feel good. If you had been working pay of $100,000 in debt and, by chance, got enough to undo your debt and keep you leaving comfortably wouldn't you dance for joy? The second you realised that financial stability was going to end wouldn't the world crash down around your ears? Don't marry symptom and cause when they don't fit together, find the link.

 

[Dana22]

They deserve whatever they could get in the free market or decide to pay themselves.

Yeah pretty much, I dont even care if they earn millions if what they do is legal.

 

[MasterChief892039]

I'm inclined to believe that the hefty sallery makes people complacent and bigotted

You make yourself look ignorant and uneducated when you accuse others -without any sort of evidence except your own opinion- of being complacent/bigoted as a result of how much money they make. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Complacent to what? Bigoted against who? You're talking out your ass.

 

[monkey_man]

It's not needed. But it would be fun as hell
Because if I'd have that amount of money, I would be really sparesome, and in about 13 years a millionaire, then I'd stop working.