JCC Pity the fool... The woes of only making $350,000 a year

An attempt at comprehensive thoughts on this thread.

1. Probably the guy doesn't have a dishwasher because the apartment doesn't come with one, and his contract (like most) doesn't allow for major renovations of that sort to be undertaken by renters.

2. My point on the children thing was not so much that it justifies his whole attitude and story, but simply noting that it was probably the most legitimate point in his whole discussion outside his discussion of the local real estate market. Since I assume he's not hiring manservants to cart them about on sedan chairs, I just wanted to acknowledge that this can be a huge expense. I'd also give a lot of leeway here because, while I don't think it's necessarily defensible to speak about his desires (more on this later), his children are another matter. Wanting to make sure that your children are well-prepared enough to have a shot at maintaining the family's standard of living is not so unusual of a goal.

3. Having said all of the above, I'm not sure what the point of this run of stories was. It's a given that all social strata suffer during a recession of this scale, and I'm not sure anyone ever doubted it. While the struggles of the wealthy often go unmentioned, the same is true of the poor. Quite frankly, I have little to no idea how the recession has impacted the homeless, the working poor or those right on the border of qualifying for federal assistance; my conception of their pre-recession lives was already quite vague. Comparatively there is much more reporting on the upper income brackets, and this article is just one more example of this. The "untold story" element therefore falls sort of flat to me.

4. In general, I would say it's valid to explore the sort of lifestyle changes these people have had to make. It's also not inappropriate to look at their emotional response to said adjustments. It's an obvious part of what is only really a human interest story in the first place. Where I think they go astray is in trying to assign blame to specific policies ("My taxes are insane") when there's a healthy amount of choice in how they've indeed up. In lower income brackets, the argument is more "If I work hard, I deserve financial stability/security" which seems to me a reasonable argument. Here, though, the argument seems to be "If I work hard, I deserve the life I always dreamed of." Which is just sort of odd. I can see why he would want that, but not how it makes a compelling argument to change policy.

5. Even more generally, I think the approach here is exactly wrong. Contrary to the implied thesis, the problem is not that these people are "not rich." It's that they are, and no one (themselves included) will acknowledge it. Going back to my earlier point, obsession with the middle class has consumed our national dialogue. Thus, differences are obfuscated, and everyone becomes a part of this amorphous and ill-defined group. Being rich does not now, nor has it ever implied that your completely free of financial concerns or problems in life. It means you have significantly more wealth (and usually, annual income) than the vast majority of your fellow citizens. Period. Just as being poor means you have significantly less. Each of these states comes with a unique set of problems, and sensible discussion would recognize those distinctions and develop a way to work around them. Instead, we get this foolishness of a guy complaining that he's a silently suffering member of the middle class, ignoring the fact that his silence is in the first place obligated by the farcical notion of trying to claim that he is middle class when he has the earnings he does.

 

I'd agree with 95% of that JW. I'd stop at him thinking he's part of the middle class or wanting us to think he is. He'd be offended at the thought IMO.

In addittion to the amusement factor, it's the rank hypocrisy of much of the rich that make these stories so fascinating for me.
Does anyone doubt this guy is for cutting assistance to the poor, etc? Of course not. Obviously that's an assumption but so be it.

He probably believes, like Herman Cain, that most poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough and the like.
Yet at the same time he cries about how hard it is out there for a $350k/yr exec.
Reminds me of the Republican representative who complained about how tough times are for him on his $174k/yr salary. Wonder what policies and positions he pushes come vote time...

 

When someone lacks perspective to such a degree as to complain about not having a fancier vacation home when millions of Americans--nevermind the people living in hopeless poverty around the world--genuinely can't make ends meet, he deserves some harsh criticism.

 

Sorry you feel that way Jello but I (not surprisingly) agree with the last two posts.
It's not like he can't pay for medical care his daughter needs or something.

 

Random thoughts I'm too lazy to put together.

1. Rush Limbaugh intentionally misinterpreted Sandra Funke's testimony, and he made up (or genuinely believed) other things such as "THE MORE SEX YOU HAVE THE MORE BIRTH CONTROL PILLS YOU HAVE TO TAKE."

2. Going by his misinterpretation and his erroneous beliefs regarding the pill, Limbaugh attacked all women who use birth control.

3. Women are an oppressed group. The rich are not.

4. Sandra Funke was testifying on the importance of the pill for reasons other than birth control. She related a story about a friend with ovarian cysts who needed the pill to control her condition. Most importantly, her opinion was right; Rush was obviously wrong. This "wah my summer home" guy is wrong.

5. Like Sandra Funke, this rich idiot spoke in a public forum. This wasn't some idle mention he made in earshot of a passerby who Tweeted it. Like everyone who airs his opinions in an article, he opened himself up to criticism.

6. You take this far too personally. Is anyone directing their responses toward you? Are you whining about the tuition for an expensive law school? We're attacking this moron, not you.

7. Yes, the concepts and political rhetoric regarding "fair share" and "deserve" and whatever are rather stupid. That isn't really unusual for soundbites. But ultimately, who cares? If President Obama said that we need funds to help the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the otherwise disadvantaged (and our military-industrial complex and food subsidies) do you think the reaction from the average stupid middle-classer would be better? And, unlike with oppressed groups, anti-rich rhetoric isn't going to hurt them especially when the Federal courts and regulators and most politicians-- including the President-- protect them. There isn't going to be a revolution or anything. There aren't crazed gunmen going around shooting up country clubs (Jews allowed since 1997).

 

Fluke. Sandra Fluke.

Though I'd be wholly unsurprised if Rush Limbaugh had done exactly the same thing twice in under two weeks.

 

Six edits and I didn't look it up and fix it! smrt

EDIT: I just realized I got the name from Arrested Development.

 

Also, I don't want to see a tape of this guy having sex unlike what Rush said about Sandra F.

 

I know many idiots who are NOT Tea-Partiers. In fact, they would be offended.

One thing I've run into that I'm not sure I understand, and possibly there are others not factoring it in...
In NYC and other areas, "Prestige" matters. It seems, that if you put the word "exclusive" on something, or just charge more for your goods/services, that automatically makes it worth more. I know, strange. And when it comes to children, expensive private schools--the more 'exclusive' the better--are actually worth more than rearing your children yourself, or spending time with them, or whatever. Again, I'm not sure I understand this thinking at all. Maybe if I had children it might make some sense, but I doubt it.
Now good is the NYC school system? Well, last stats I looked at put CA at 48 of 50, and NY was not one of the other two, so probably better than here.

Where was I going with this...
Oh, so, in some people's minds, having the trappings of wealth and exclusivity is worth the cost, even if they cannot (or can barely) afford it.

On the other hand, putting himself out in public whining about his problems when others (like, well, not to be egocentric or anything but, ME, and all of my friends, and I dare say a goodly portion of people reading my self-righteous post here) are in much worse straights, is arrogant, offensive, and asinine. Hell, just that he has a JOB to go to in the first place puts him in damn good shape. Best estimate here is 20-25% unemployment. So he can take his troubles and shove them up his pie hole. Maybe he needs to re-evaluate what he needs, and what is just an arrogant, self-gratifying luxury. Bluntly, I find his whining far more offensive than Limbaugh.
This guy thinks he's suffering, and unless he prints a retraction, I would have to say he doesn't realize he's made a mistake.
Limbaugh has had people point out his mistake to him, if he didn't figure it out on his own (chances are, he didn't).

 

This is true.

But it's also relative. You could make the exact same argument about an entire of nation whining about having to pay more than 33% less per galon of gas than the some European countries while having problably more than twice as much access to gasoline than most nations in the world*. Not to mention bitching about cell phones or iPads or game play when 2 billion people are surving on less than $2/day.

I think we could all stand to obtain a little perspective--both about how good or bad we have it and about how high a horse we can sit upon as we pass judgment on others.

*Not a verified fact.

 

London is expensive, my aprents whose combined wealth is less than 40k a year raised me & my sister and we never struggled for anything. We went on holiday every year, went to school, could afford a TV & computer and had 2 Cats (vet bills are not cheap) with that sort of income. Always have done dishes by hand, not because a dishwasher is too expensive but because it's not needed and they tend to wate water.
It's how you use the money you have that matters, complaining you can't afford things you don't need is stupid. I can't afford a new car, I can only buy used ones. That doesn't mean I'm struggling, you can get decent used cars pretty cheap.


Maybe he should send his daughter to a regular school, I would be willing to bet all the money he forks out isn't getting her any more of an education.

 

Well, it all boils down to one issue.

The rent is too damn high.