What's life like with 100K/year or more?

[kcowan]

Is it?

Consider the implications if the majority of corporations in the US sacrificed efficiency and profitability for the sake of employing more people. The knee jerk reaction is that it would be all milk and honey. The unfortunate reality is that the whole of the US would eventually end up looking a lot like General Motors.

An individual company in a niche business with a strong brand can, for a time, ignore economics and overpay and over-employ its workers. Eventually, though, another company will look to capture those excess profits for themselves forcing the benevolent company to either change or go bankrupt.

Although this may sound lamentable, this "creative destruction" forces greater output per worker which is the bed rock upon which national wealth is created - without which we would all still be scratching out meager livings on a farm. Be thankful for the profit motive. We are all wealthier and more comfortable because of it (even those folks losing jobs to competition).

There are 1000s of private companies that behave like the one cited. Most of the press is on the public ones. And even then on the ones with the greatest abuses. Even guys like Neutron Jack eventually get rehabilitated. Although Chainsaw Al was not so lucky.

 

[Gone4Good]

There are 1000s of private companies that behave like the one cited. Most of the press is on the public ones. And even then on the ones with the greatest abuses. Even guys like Neutron Jack eventually get rehabilitated. Although Chainsaw Al was not so lucky.

Possibly . . . but each one will eventually lose to competitors who are more ruthless in cutting costs, increasing efficiencies, and can expand through their access to the lower cost capital that is available to businesses with high returns on equity. It should be none other.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Possibly . . . but each one will eventually lose to competitors who are more ruthless in cutting costs, increasing efficiencies, and can expand through their access to the lower cost capital that is available to businesses with high returns on equity. It should be none other.

That's capitalism baby!

JG

 

[theronware]

"3 years to go" -- what a nice euphemism-- "those who are temporarily disadvantaged by change" !!!

Even before these putative workers were displaced by "economic dynamism" , they were already being screwed -- the minimum wage is now worth less than it has been at any time since 1951....don't rationalize this away with some half-baked economic theory about rampant capitalism always being good for "us". It is sheer greed and displacement upwards of society's wealth and you are an apologist for this greed.

You may have also noted in the news last week that the the USA, though one of the richest countries in the world, only ranks 23rd on the list of "happiest societies". Other capitalist economies like Ireland and Switzerland (also very wealthy) rank in the top 12 -- at least partly because those countries have in place programs that check the worst excesses of extreme capitalism ... free health care/generous unemployment and retraining schemes/generous leave policies etc etc. These are what make individuals feel valuable to a society -- unlike the U.S. where, if you "get downsized", you are on you own. Please let's not pretend that capitalism "has" to be the way it is in the U.S. -- other countries make capitalism work for the good of every citizen.... it could happen here today if we didn't have people like "3 years to go" concocting these self-interested theories about how capitalism "has" to be and what it "has" to do to work.

 

[Leonidas]

In talking about these issues many folks often lose sight of the forest for the trees. The forest being a dynamic, free-market that increases national wealth and strives for full employment against the individual "trees" that are temporarily displaced as a result of progressive change.

I like the analogy. But having grown up in poverty I can never forget what it feels like to be "the tree" - or the tree's kid. I don't support the extremes to which some would like to carry their idea of "social justice", and that would include legislation to outlaw high executive compensation. But I do think the government should be/could be more effective in making sure that our businesses can be more competitive and be able to hire more domestic workers while also ensuring that our fellow citizens are actually prepared to fill the kind of jobs that the economy creates.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

The answer to your question is that the unemployed worker in the US (and any other developed capitalist system) still has a higher standard of living then most other people in the world. It is economic dynamism and free competition that allows the wealth creation that elevates standards of living . . . even for those who are temporarily disadvantaged by change.

Damn straight!

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

"3 years to go" -- what a nice euphemism-- "those who are temporarily disadvantaged by change" !!!

Even before these putative workers were displaced by "economic dynamism" , they were already being screwed -- the minimum wage is now worth less than it has been at any time since 1951....don't rationalize this away with some half-baked economic theory about rampant capitalism always being good for "us". It is sheer greed and displacement upwards of society's wealth and you are an apologist for this greed.

You may have also noted in the news last week that the the USA, though one of the richest countries in the world, only ranks 23rd on the list of "happiest societies". Other capitalist economies like Ireland and Switzerland (also very wealthy) rank in the top 12 -- at least partly because those countries have in place programs that check the worst excesses of extreme capitalism ... free health care/generous unemployment and retraining schemes/generous leave policies etc etc. These are what make individuals feel valuable to a society -- unlike the U.S. where, if you "get downsized", you are on you own. Please let's not pretend that capitalism "has" to be the way it is in the U.S. -- other countries make capitalism work for the good of every citizen.... it could happen here today if we didn't have people like "3 years to go" concocting these self-interested theories about how capitalism "has" to be and what it "has" to do to work.

A word from the "lunatic right wing fringe". To folks like me, we are already way too far down the road to leftist/collectivism in the USA. Worse,
I believe this will continue indefinitely. Bleeding heart libs think this is good.
Look-out-for-yourself hard-core capitalists think it's a disaster. Now,
I will concede that being born in the USA, white, middle class and smart
makes it a lot easier for me to stake out this position.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Yep, they're doing what they gotta do, but they're rat bastards just the same!

Chainsaw Al is my hero!

JG

 

[Nords]

-- the minimum wage is now worth less than it has been at any time since 1951....don't rationalize this away with some half-baked economic theory about rampant capitalism always being good for "us".

Let's put the "golden 1950s" legend to rest.

1951 life was pretty good if you were a white male Anglo-Saxon American. Prejudice, discrimination, racism, and misogyny ran wild for the rest of your fellow patriots. Women, blacks, Hispanics, & Jews probably weren't too impressed with the minimum wage back then, let alone their "career opportunities".

Jobs were plentiful because most of the European & Asian economies had been destroyed by your peer group, much of your peer group had died in the process, and you survivors had all spent the last six years in an orgy of pent-up consumerism after four years of rationing. This economic advantage lasted until the 1970s, when all the new economies (and their brand-new factories) finally began to level the playing field. It's taken us a generation to get off our fat assets and learn to compete against (or work with) the rest of the world.

So let's not use 1951 wages as an example of how badly today sucks. Let's use 1941, or 1931, or even 1921. But not the wages earned at a peak achieved by virtue of world destruction.

Chainsaw Al is my hero!
JG

Which part impresses you the most-- the lying, the cheating, the stealing, the screaming, his marital status, the number of employees he put out of work, the millions he paid in settlements, or the fact that he's no longer a titan of industry either?

 

[theronware]

NOrds--

choose 1960 if it would suit you better, or 1970, or whatever. I wasn't idealizing the 50s -- simply citing the fact that inflation has been eroding the minimum wage since that date (as cited by the Nobel Prize winners in economics in their report this week). It was a statement of economic fact. It pertained not at all to the social/political context of the 50s.

theronware

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Let's put the "golden 1950s" legend to rest.

1951 life was pretty good if you were a white male Anglo-Saxon American. Prejudice, discrimination, racism, and misogyny ran wild for the rest of your fellow patriots. Women, blacks, Hispanics, & Jews probably weren't too impressed with the minimum wage back then, let alone their "career opportunities".

Jobs were plentiful because most of the European & Asian economies had been destroyed by your peer group, much of your peer group had died in the process, and you survivors had all spent the last six years in an orgy of pent-up consumerism after four years of rationing. This economic advantage lasted until the 1970s, when all the new economies (and their brand-new factories) finally began to level the playing field. It's taken us a generation to get off our fat assets and learn to compete against (or work with) the rest of the world.

So let's not use 1951 wages as an example of how badly today sucks. Let's use 1941, or 1931, or even 1921. But not the wages earned at a peak achieved by virtue of world destruction.
Which part impresses you the most-- the lying, the cheating, the stealing, the screaming, his marital status, the number of employees he put out of work, the millions he paid in settlements, or the fact that he's no longer a titan of industry either?

It's a joke man. Lighten up!

JG

 

[youbet]

Open markets and competition are all well and good, I'm a big fan, but I would like to see us do a better job of allocating the subsequent costs to society to those benefitting from the costs. Sometimes we seem to get it right, sometimes not. A more accurate allocation scheme would lead to more efficiencies.

 

[Leonidas]

You may have also noted in the news last week that the the USA, though one of the richest countries in the world, only ranks 23rd on the list of "happiest societies". Other capitalist economies like Ireland and Switzerland (also very wealthy) rank in the top 12 -- at least partly because those countries have in place programs that check the worst excesses of extreme capitalism ... free health care/generous unemployment and retraining schemes/generous leave policies etc etc. These are what make individuals feel valuable to a society -- unlike the U.S. where, if you "get downsized", you are on you own.

Your reference to the survey threw me for a loop for a moment, because I was looking at some information on that topic a few nights ago. I could have sworn the US did much better than 23. Is this the survey you're talking about?

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/dl44k145g5scuy453044gqbu11072006194758.pdf

The New Economics Foundation's "Happy Planet Index" shows the US as 24th out of all Western nations in it's happiness index. But that differs from what I had looked at, the World Values Survey, which shows the US as 13th in the world (as opposed to the West), and ahead of countries like Canada, Japan, France, Italy, Spain, etc. in the category.

The NEF happiness index you reported to added some things to their research - such as "ecological footprint" - that may affect happiness but I don't see the appropriateness in using it in their calculations. They started with the same basic question as the World Values Survey - "How happy are you", and started adding in their own calculations. Of course, the NEF does have a political agenda. "The group's goal is to promote their progressive view of welfare economics and environmentalism.".

I think I prefer the WVS, called "...the most comprehensive and wide-ranging survey of human values ever undertaken..."

But, you could also compare it to the World Database of Happiness', report on Happiness in Nations, "Average Happiness in 90 Nations 1990 - 2000 (US in 12th place). Or, the Human Development Index, which like the NEF report includes lifespan. It goes on to include education levels and gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) - the US is 10th on that list.

 

[Gone4Good]

NOrds--

choose 1960 if it would suit you better, or 1970, or whatever. I wasn't idealizing the 50s -- simply citing the fact that inflation has been eroding the minimum wage since that date (as cited by the Nobel Prize winners in economics in their report this week). It was a statement of economic fact. It pertained not at all to the social/political context of the 50s.

theronware

I would think an appropriate analysis would also include some discussion of how many people are actually getting paid the minimum wage at these various points in history. Even Walmart, with an average "associate" wage of $9.83 / hour, pays well above the current minimum wage. It may shock you to learn that Walmart even pays above the highest ever constant dollar minimum wage, which was $9.38 in 1968 ($1.60 in 1968 dollars).

 

[Gone4Good]

You may have also noted in the news last week that the the USA, though one of the richest countries in the world, only ranks 23rd on the list of "happiest societies".

The New Economics Foundation's "Happy Planet Index" shows the US as 24th out of all Western nations in it's happiness index. But that differs from what I had looked at, the World Values Survey, which shows the US as 13th in the world (as opposed to the West), and ahead of countries like Canada, Japan, France, Italy, Spain, etc. in the category.

Heh, heh, heh, heh.

24th, or 13th, or 10th, or whatever, out of ~178 nations . . . and your complaining about what, exactly?

 

[theronware]

Leonidas --

The prime mover behind the World Values Survey is Ronald Inglehart from the U of Michigan. His work is very controversial and in fact one of his main ideas has been completely discredited-- his argument that, as societies evolve away from industrialism, the role of religion in cultures would diminish hugely and secularism would gradually take over (see Wikpedia on this). So i'm not sure I put much credence behind his work on happiness/values either.

But your larger point is well taken. All "happiness surveys" are very subjective and are bound to reflect the ideas of the people who design/carry them out.

Still, i think we need examples of capitalist economies who do things better than us -- that look after *every* citizen better than we do AND that are highly successful economically. Otherwise we simply can't fix what's broken in our own system -- and we are at the mercy of people like *3 years to go* who present "Capitalism" as this juggernaut that we must bow down to and let on its merry destructive/creative way.

 

[Gone4Good]

I like the analogy. But having grown up in poverty I can never forget what it feels like to be "the tree" - or the tree's kid.

Wouldn't much of the world's poverty stricken be grateful for the opportunity to rise from the ranks of the poor to a position where they can contemplate "early retirement" within one generation?? What a great system!

 

[Running_Man]

That's capitalism baby!

JG

The topic is what is it like to have $100,000 a year to spend. Mostly it seems that what you would be able to do with others less fortunate than yourself is not worthwhile. The lessons of Charles Dickens are so easily forgotten. All we have in this world is time and the ability to convert to money is valued over all other.

When we all leave this world the ability to optimize capital will never be well thought of. My issue is not that Asia holds cheaper IT resources or manufacturing facilities can fabricate products at a fraction of the cost. It is if you hire an individual to do a job, stock prices should not dictate whether or not he/she gets to hold that job. The word of an individual should be counted on.

Any person that comes to realize they are thought of as no more than a socket wrench will never reach their potential, which should be the job of every CEO. If I had $100,000 a year I would live on $40,000 and give away the $60,000 to the people I thought would benefit the most.

With the time I would have I think that would be something I would enjoy. No amount of money could bring back my mother who died of lung cancer as I sat with her. But perhaps I could pay for another's medical care, she would like that.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . If I had $100,000 a year I would live on $40,000 and give away the $60,000 to the people I thought would benefit the most.

. . .

That is easier said than done. Is it better to pass out money to the homeless people on the street, to local organizations and charities, to national groups or to international groups? Which ones? Is it better to give away your money little bits at a time or to save it until you can fund a significant project for a worthwhile group? What if a loved one needs money and you've given all of yours away? Or what if disasterous financial times hit and you and your family suffer because you gave much of your money away?

I admire your sentiment, but deciding what to do with excess money is not simple.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

That is easier said than done. Is it better to pass out money to the homeless people on the street, to local organizations and charities, to national groups or to international groups? Which ones? Is it better to give away your money little bits at a time or to save it until you can fund a significant project for a worthwhile group? What if a loved one needs money and you've given all of yours away? Or what if disasterous financial times hit and you and your family suffer because you gave much of your money away?

I admire your sentiment, but deciding what to do with excess money is not simple.

Generally "excess money" in ER does not exist, until you are dead.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

When we all leave this world the ability to optimize capital will never be well thought of.

Any person that comes to realize they are thought of as no more than a socket wrench will never reach their potential, which should be the job of every CEO.

You write well, and obviously have endured some of life's hurts. We all have
(or will), I have my share. That said, I disagree completely with your position vis-a-vis capitalism, including the statement about "maximizing capital" being "never well thought of." Capitalism and those who practice it
are the "unknown ideal". A system that produces the greatest good for the
most people IMHO. People will slip thru the cracks (or simply can't
be helped/saved in lots of situations). I'll take my chances with capitalism.
I believe it's a natural law, not just a philosophy or manmade idea.

JG

 

[Delawaredave]

The New Economics Foundation's "Happy Planet Index" shows the US as 24th out of all Western nations in it's happiness index.

I believe Americans are low on "happiness index" not because of social policies - but because Americans are "addicted to consumerism" and marketers pound people to define their life by the "stuff they have" (or don't have).

Back to OP, I truly believe a "consumerism addict" can be miserable "only" having $100K/year....

I met a lady who was miserable because her kitchen "only had one dishwasher" - all her friends had two dishwashers in their kitchens.

Hard to believe a person, hell a whole society, can be so misguided on why we are here on this earth....

 

[youbet]

That is easier said than done. Is it better to pass out money to the homeless people on the street, to local organizations and charities, to national groups or to international groups? Which ones? Is it better to give away your money little bits at a time or to save it until you can fund a significant project for a worthwhile group?

It is best to give it wherever giving gives you the most pleasure and satisfaction. That's capitalism.

What if a loved one needs money and you've given all of yours away? Or what if disasterous financial times hit and you and your family suffer because you gave much of your money away?

You would have exactly the same amount of money left as if you had been spending it on trinkets instead of charity. Exactly, to the penny. $60K/yr to charity is exactly the same as $60K/yr to trinkets.

[/quote]

 

[kcowan]

I believe Americans are low on "happiness index" not because of social policies - but because Americans are "addicted to consumerism" and marketers pound people to define their life by the "stuff they have" (or don't have).

Back to OP, I truly believe a "consumerism addict" can be miserable "only" having $100K/year....

I met a lady who was miserable because her kitchen "only had one dishwasher" - all her friends had two dishwashers in their kitchens.

Hard to believe a person, hell a whole society, can be so misguided on why we are here on this earth....

In fact, there have been studies that show more money above the subsistence level results in dissatisfaction because of the choices that it brings, and with choices we tend to second guess whether we made the right choice. It is this expanded choice that generate an unneasy feeling that we might be choosing wrong.

Gee a third car (collector) or a 50" plasma home theater system? Tough choices. I never even considered the second dishwasher (except of course in the second home).

 

[Gone4Good]

When we all leave this world the ability to optimize capital will never be well thought of.

True at the micro level but exceedingly untrue at the macro level. Africa (and other similarly poor places) need the political, legal, and economic systems (namely democracy, rule of law - including property rights, and capitalism) more than they need any level of foreign aid or “compassion”. Consider the alleviation of suffering that these things could bring to the world's poor.

Capitalism - the world’s most successful anti-poverty program . . . by far!!

It is if you hire an individual to do a job, stock prices should not dictate whether or not he/she gets to hold that job. The word of an individual should be counted on.

But most employment here in the states is "at will" . . . meaning that the employee can leave for greener pastures and so too the employer. So the notion that one side is "breaking their word" is not applicable in most instances. This is as it should be. I disagree that the employer has any greater responsibility to the employee than vice versa. In fact, flexible labor arrangements and labor mobility are key to economic stability and full employment - the more the flexible the better for both employee and employer alike. People forget that "job security" measures often result in higher levels of unemployment. So the trade-off is often between "job security" and "job scarcity" a.k.a the European model. As much as many wish otherwise, there really is no such thing as a free lunch.