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

[fatmrbunko]

tbh people arent gonna be able to do much extra with 100000 a year except take long and expensive holidays and have a few extra frivilous things that they really wuldnt want otherwise but once u get into the 10millions people can start to have really extravegent lives and have the things they reallly really want as well as houses or homes in multiple countries however noone really deserves that kinda money

off topic: if i had that kinda money...first man on mars

 

[JoshGod]

I think it depends on a combination of what they do and for how long. Bigger wages for soldiers (no i'm not one). However £100,000 is still a lot of money.

 

[Sakurazaki1023]

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.

I wish more CEOs would try something like that. It would be nice to know that some businessmen are still sane and moral individuals...

As an aspiring engineer, my salary will most likely start around 65k (entry level) and be up around 90-100k by the time I'm in my late 20s. 100k per household is slightly high for middle class where I live, but think it's a pretty good salary for a middle class family with 1-2 kids.

 

[Apocalypse Tank]

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is mostly BS, but it argues against the topic's opinion quite nicely. If you are interested, take a look at the Fountainhead and see how capitalism justify itself.

 

[Gavmando]

Hell yes! I do the work, I should make that money.

Plus, have you ever tried to live in a decent area of Sydney on less? It's pretty hard.

 

[DTWolfwood]

come live in NYC. You'll see y i said yes. Atm im actually underpaid for what i have to deal with at work >.<

 

[Johnnyallstar]

The way you answer the question can be determined by answering this one:

Does a janitor deserve to be paid what a neurosurgeon is paid? I would say no.

The reason for differing values of pay is because there are differing values of work, which arise from multiple reasons.

1.) Skill required: Who would go through multiple levels of higher education, spending tens of thousands of dollars to be a doctor, like me, to develop high level skills if flipping burgers at McDonalds would give you the same pay? Only a few very dedicated people to helping people no matter the cost.

2.) Risks of job: One of the highest paying, and most dangerous, seasonal jobs is fishing for king crab off the coasts of Alaska. Could you convince someone to put their life in jeopardy for minimum wage, when they could work as a dock walloper in a relatively safe warehouse like me for more? Most likely not. The dangers involved are countered by the incentive for earning money.

3.) Authoritative Position: Why does a CEO of a major business make so much money? Because if he makes one wrong mistake, the entire company could conceivably collapse, sending thousands into unemployment, and devastating local economies in it's wake. A proper CEO ensures that this doesn't happen by having the authority to make high level decisions that creates ripple effects throughout not just the company, but throughout the world. Paying someone "exorbitantly" for this job is a sign of respect for his skills, wisdom, and capability, though I will agree that sometimes the wrong person does get in charge, and payed beyond their means.

4.) Need: Why do actors and professional athletes make so much money? Because they are the reason why their respective businesses make so much. The payment made to them is something of an investment by the front offices in lieu of good performance which will hopefully rake in a significant profit. Could lesser actors or athletes be utilized? Often they are, but look at the difference in money the elite level talents bring in compared to lesser talents. Sometimes there are breakout talent that can become superstar, but generally superstar talent is a safer bet.

There are other reasons, of course, and many of these intertwine to a point, but I'm good with this wall of text for now.

 

[TheTim]

my parents make 200k a year combined and we live like a normal family, were not bigoted or selfish.

 

[Exocet]

$100K is still reasonable to me.You work hard,you get payed well.It's enough to live very comfortably and be able to invest on the side.
It's those tens of millions every year for kicking a ball around that pisses me off.

 

[Jursa]

Yes I do believe that if someone does work that has a lot of responsibility and skill to it why should he be paid the same ammount as someone with little to none or some worthless profession he got in a college while getting high. I'm studying dentistry and my girlfriend is studying medicine, we would be pretty pissed if we didn't earn at least that kind of money for the studies we go through and the studies other people go through.

 

[SFR]

No, they probably don't need that much, but I think those who make it deserve it. Other than those who inherited money, I feel like entrepreneurs and hard workers who rose up the corporate ladder deserve a handsome salary. Even if a business starting multimillionaire dickhead who everybody hates is making millions a year, I don't care. They got somewhere because they tried hard. They probably don't give much of that money to charity, and they probably complain when even a little bit of it could possibly be taken away by the hands of the government, but it's still the American dream dammit (or _______ dream, where ever you're living). Well done, those who live it.

 

[Flames66]

They deserve whatever they could get in the free market or decide to pay themselves. Also how does a hefty salary make people bigotted.

The question isn't if they deserve it, but whether they need it. Even with a hypothetical family of 10 it is not necessary to survive.

 

[Ultra_Caboose]

If a person has worked hard enough to earn that salary, then all the more power to them.

On the other hand, a lot of athletes get paid rediculous amounts of money for what they do. As skilled as they may be in their respective sports, when it all boils down to it, they're getting payed to play a game. People on the team who spend the entire game on the bench as a backup make more money in one game than either of my parents make in a year. That needs to stop.

 

[Snor]

i dont care what someone earns but only when not being paid in any way by a tax payer.

also i do believe it is our duty to help people who are less fortunate so as long as fair taxes are paid and spend responsibly I don't care how much you earn

 

[CommanderKirov]

100.000 is not realy alot.

Unless you mean 100.000 spare income that you are left with after paying for house. Commodities and such.

Than again. I was brought up in a quite a well-off family and right now leading quite a cushiony life so I'm guessing my view of money is slightly scewed.

 

[Altorin]

there's nothing wrong with 100,000 dollars a year. It only gets silly when it gets into the millions of dollars a year. But even then, it's part of capitalism. Unless we completely change our economic system, you'll never remove exorbitant salaries, and honestly, you shouldn't remove them. They're part of the system that we're working with.

 

[babinro]

If we could restrict income so that the rest could go towards government funded programs, taxes, infrastructure, health-care, etc...I would have to assume the world would be a better place for all.

 

[dkyros]

Its called student loans, I will make that money but, lets just say medical school is expensive

 

[wammnebu]

Everyone likes 100K whether you like having it,you have to like it or like to have it