$350,000/Year Not Enough

[Commodore]

So, again, you don't think that economic conflict is inherent in the wage system, in the attempt by two parties to extract the highest return from a finite source of income, but is just a maliciousness bred by a lack of mutual empathy?

I have already agreed with you that there are problems with the system beyond what is displayed in this story and others like it. I don't know why you keep asking me if I think otherwise.

That if people just straighten up and fly right, then we wouldn't see social conflict emerging between different social classes, and that everyone would simply know their place and be happy with it?

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that a lot of social conflict could be avoided if people would stop making irresponsible statements publicly. To use this story as an example: What did this guy think would happen if he complained that his $350,000 salary wasn't enough and that he is struggling? There is absolutely nothing positive that could have come from him saying that. And then for that accountant for the wealthy to say that people without money don't understand the stress. Again, that is a statement that would have no positive outcome. The fact that only negative results could come from those statements makes them irresponsible statements.

I mean if you can't understand the difference between meaningful dialog and irresponsible statements, then you are a lost cause.

 

[fishjie]

i can see where he's coming from. in america people derive happiness from material things, and as a result there will never be enough money. they will always want more because they are always spending more. take any guy whose making 30k a year and up his salary to 350k and sure he'll be happy for a month, but in no time flat he'll be miserable. this is why a lot of lottery winners end u penniless a few years later. so lol at people judging him, because most americans would be just as miserable in his situation. its a materialistic country and its values reflect that.

the only way to solve this is to kill off bad role models like the kardashians and paris hilton, who the media idolizes and praise rich people who live boring plain and simple lives instead.

 

[Crezth]

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that a lot of social conflict could be avoided if people would stop making irresponsible statements publicly. To use this story as an example: What did this guy think would happen if he complained that his $350,000 salary wasn't enough and that he is struggling? There is absolutely nothing positive that could have come from him saying that. And then for that accountant for the wealthy to say that people without money don't understand the stress. Again, that is a statement that would have no positive outcome. The fact that only negative results could come from those statements makes them irresponsible statements.

I mean if you can't understand the difference between meaningful dialog and irresponsible statements, then you are a lost cause.

This entire argument would clear up if you would just explain what a "meaningful dialog" is supposed to be, because what it looks like you think a meaningful dialog is is simply everyone, as Traitorfish put it, "flying straight" and "knowing their place." Or at least, those are necessary components to the dialog.

 

[Commodore]

This entire argument would clear up if you would just explain what a "meaningful dialog" is supposed to be, because what it looks like you think a meaningful dialog is is simply everyone, as Traitorfish put it, "flying straight" and "knowing their place." Or at least, those are necessary components to the dialog.

Meaningful dialog would be the different segements of our society making a real attempt to understand each other instead of viewing one another as adversaries. It also involves actually trying to bridge the gaps between social classes.

I'll give a more detailed answer later, my daughter is flopping around in my lap right now.

 

[Crezth]

Meaningful dialog would be the different segements of our society making a real attempt to understand each other instead of viewing one another as adversaries. It also involves actually trying to bridge the gaps between social classes.

I'll give a more detailed answer later, my daughter is flopping around in my lap right now.

So what you're basically saying here is that they are only each other's adversaries as a matter of perception, and by abandoning that perception they are no longer adversaries?

 

[Traitorfish]

I have already agreed with you that there are problems with the system beyond what is displayed in this story and others like it. I don't know why you keep asking me if I think otherwise.

You keep describing tension between social classes as something abbertant, that can and should be avoided, which implies that you don't regard it as, for want of a better word, a "natural" aspect of capitalist society. If you don't think that, and view it as being indeed "natural", then why do you think that this will contribute to the heightening of such tensions when it doesn't have any meaningful impact on actual economic conflict? Do you really think that events like this will lead workers to pursue higher wages and benefits, as if that wasn't something they do anyway? Or that the reverse sort of story will lead employers to lower wages and benefits, as if that wasn't something that they did anyway?

It's honestly not very clear.

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that a lot of social conflict could be avoided if people would stop making irresponsible statements publicly. To use this story as an example: What did this guy think would happen if he complained that his $350,000 salary wasn't enough and that he is struggling? There is absolutely nothing positive that could have come from him saying that. And then for that accountant for the wealthy to say that people without money don't understand the stress. Again, that is a statement that would have no positive outcome. The fact that only negative results could come from those statements makes them irresponsible statements.

That doesn't follow. Why does the fact that his statements will not produce "positive outcomes" mean that it must produce "negative outcomes"? Why do they have to produce any outcomes at all? I could, for example, comment that "the sky is quite blue today", and while that wouldn't have any positive outcomes, it woudln't have any negative outcomes, either; it would merely be inconsequential.

Meaningful dialog would be the different segements of our society making a real attempt to understand each other instead of viewing one another as adversaries. It also involves actually trying to bridge the gaps between social classes.

What happens if, hypothetically, they are adversaries? To take a non-controversial example, would you not agree that the relationship between peasants and aristocrats in a feudal society was necessarilly adverserial, with one side trying to exploit and oppress the other, and the other side trying to resists exploitation and oppression? Should people feel obliged to pursue reconcilation and social harmony if it means injustice and unfreedom?

 

[Mise]

I thought this article was relevant: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

Not to the current conversation of course, but to the original topic.

Or, as Hamilton Nolan at Gawker put it, "'Sure, it's an objectively large sum of money,' they say. 'But it is far smaller after I spend it.'"

 

[downtown]

take any guy whose making 30k a year and up his salary to 350k and sure he'll be happy for a month, but in no time flat he'll be miserable. .

I'd just like to say that if my income suddenly jumped to 350K, I would not be miserable in a month, even if it meant I had to work significantly longer hours

 

[Mise]

I'm considerably happier now than when I was making $30k.