It's boring because everyone else is on the treadmill and has no time to entertain you. Maybe first week or two, but the daily reality hits everyone and the basic fact is people need money and the best way we all have to make money is to work. So unless you give everyone around you money they have to work and cannot hang out with you ...
Right. I feel like people that say it's boring maybe aren't being creative enough. Do that project you've been wanting to do forever, travel, go camping, pick up a sport, play video games you missed out on, or just work part time at a place you actually enjoy. Being financially secure opens up a ton of possibilities.
Sports and Video Games seemed so fake and trivial. (I'm not alone in this thought, so please don't just criticize it, I think its fair)
I got into a few hobbies during it, but there was something missing about the hobby.
I would try to replace that treadmill running with the hobby, but two things would happen: The hobby stops being fun or you never scratch the treadmill running itch.
I don't really believe we just need to change our psychology or short term behaviors and try to enjoy what other people say they enjoy.
My favorite hobby, reading/audiobook philosophy, can be done with the treadmill life. Best of both worlds.
> Sports and Video Games seemed so fake and trivial.
Agreed.
My inner armchair psychologist wants to ask, “what is fundamentally different between the treadmill and a hobby?” For me, I think it’s doing something that matters for the world. Hobbies on their own tend to be self-enriching (which is essential) while the notion of a treadmill is that you are accomplishing something greater than just yourself. If true, what we are all missing may be a sense of agency to effect meaningful change.
Well, the "treadmill" implies doing work that accomplishes nothing to me. If you get meaning from working a standard job, then that's great. Guess I misunderstood what y'all meant by the treadmill.
I wish they had a version of the figure with a log scale, since it seems like people of all income brackets except the very lowest say a 30-50% raise will make them happy.
> Dunn said that many people might be happier if they focus on the best ways to use the money they have, rather than on getting more of it.
So out of touch. Sure, the >$200k bracket saying they also need a 50% raise to be happier is a bit rich, but for a anyone else, especially <$100k, people don’t have time to make their money work better for them.
The whole complaint about wage stagnation is that people need to work multiple jobs, commute long hours, etc so they don’t have time to eat well, go to the doctor, spend time with kids, or whatever they need to be happier. Whoever says otherwise either doesn’t live in our society or is already over the wage hump of living comfortably.
It'd be so nice if basic needs were just met as part of the societal contract. Then work is the thing we do to fund the extras. People who can't work for whatever reason don't have to fight to survive and people who want to work or have more ambition can actually do something with the money they make.
What does that look like in terms of actual implementation? Also, where do we draw the line between basic needs and extras? Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night, etc when they have all of their basic needs met for free?
Maybe something like the food stamp program. I haven’t personally used it but it seems to work, considering I’ve never seen an emaciated homeless person in the US.
Most homeless people don't get food stamps. Programs like food stamps usually require someone to have a mailing address, which can be difficult to establish if you are homeless. Some people think you can just go get a PO Box or third party mailbox, but you can't. The USPS requires you to have a physical address to get a PO Box, and third party mailboxes that want to accept USPS mail delivery have to apply the same standard.
A lot of homeless people in the US are basically dependent on their "Obamaphone" highly subsidized cell phones just to maintain access to basic resources like shelters and state provided aid. So of course, in all those "homeless camp sweeps" (read: homeless harassment campaigns) their phones and anything else they own tend to get thrown in a dumpster. They lose access to their support network, their state advocate, their resources etc.
But too bad apparently, how dare people who aren't legally allowed to be anywhere, be somewhere.
At least in california people are given notice before a cleanup and given plenty of opportunity to get important things together. They are offered shelter space or supportive housing before the encampment is cleaned out too. If there are items that seem to be important personal property after the notice period, some cities actually will hold these items off site for a time for eventual collection by the property owner.
A quick google search seems to suggest you don't need a mailing address for food stamps or a lot of other social welfare programs. That would kind of defeat the point if it did.
I'd say basic needs are a safe place to live, food, and some kind of transportation (unless the area is reasonably walkable).
As far as who does the shitty labor jobs, they would need to incentivize that work to make it desirable for people, instead of just expecting someone to need to do it to not die. We are also at a point where a lot of those jobs could be done by machines.
> Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night, etc when they have all of their basic needs met for free?
The idea that we need to ensure that a large enough group is struggling enough to work unsavory jobs is a predatory mindset.
If less people want to work a certain job for any reason, that means that the demand is greater than the supply. In that scenario, the traditional way to get people to work those jobs is to offer more money or other compensation.
Just because people have some food, clothing and shelter does not mean that they won't want better food, better clothing or better shelter.
> the traditional way to get people to work those jobs is to offer more money or other compensation.
And that will raise the cost of all services and goods, including the cost of having someone's basic needs met. Then we're back to square one, now what?
If the current cost of things is based on exploiting workers, then costs should rise.
However, I don't think that's currently the case.
The current cost of things is now predominantly driven by how much could be charged. I see it all the time: "the value of something is determined by the maximum price that the market is willing to pay".
So if the price is based on the maximum they could charge, then they won't be able to raise the prices because they will lose all their customers. They will have to find a more efficient business model.
The place where most cuts should happen is at the top of the pay scale. There is absolutely no good reason that the person who owns the company that picks up my garbage should be making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
But regardless of how they streamline their business models to allow for maximum profitability, one thing is certain...
If we need to employ systemic, predatory behavior that forces people to take unsavory jobs to survive then we are purposefully misunderstanding what a free market really is.
So, basic needs are just food clothing and shelter? Mental and physical healthcare is off the table in this scenario? Does the quality of the shelter come into play here? Do people get AC and guaranteed 68 degree temperatures and hot days?
You’ve missed an entire half of the question.
I would love to live in the Star Trek Utopia but you have only attacked my questions as predatory without addressing the whole foundation that is being proposed for this society. People will always be people and there will always be a need for someone to do an undesirable job. When all other jobs are out-competed for, that still leaves someone to either do the undesirable job or just accept basic minimums. The undesirable jobs might change, but the inequality will still be there.
This is a reasonably bad faith take of their response. Their “predatory” assertion was with regards to saying “who’s going to pick up garbage” as if we have to keep making that a low paying job for the bottom rung of society, not “where do we draw the line between essential and necessity”. The point is to make undesirable jobs actually well compensated for their desirableness rather than here is a job, take it or leave it.
I don’t think they intentionally excluded healthcare or comfortable living from essential needs. Yes the threshold for essential is fuzzy, but it’s a pretty damn low bar that isn’t being met for many people (in the US at least), but could be at a relatively low cost.
As far as basic needs go: affordable clothing, healthy food, clean water, access to annual preventative healthcare and urgent acute care, small but well maintained living space with climate control, basic communication device and internet plan, public transportation/(e)bike, walking distance to grocery stores and parks.
Non-basic needs: car ownership, suburban/rural living, living in areas with extreme temperature or acute water supply issues, luxury clothing/electronics/etc.
You can argue as you wish, but let me give you a sample size of one: if garbage starts to pile up on the streets and pay for hauling it away also skyrockets, I'll be the first one picking it. But that would be free market and nobody wants that, right?
I don’t think UBI type initiatives, decoupling healthcare from employment, etc are incompatible with free market actions; the goal is to cover basic needs so individuals can make their own optimal employment decisions. Wages can still vary with supply and experience can dictate positions available.
With regards to the garbage collection example (although they may not apply to all low level jobs):
1. I think wages can only inflate so far before being overwhelmed by employment supply
2. Raising wages for these jobs helps return dignity and respect to them within the community
3. Because labor cost is cheap/suppressed, we have nonoptimal solutions to things like trash collection and I think there are ways to reduce the labor required.
4. I understand people operate for themselves and don’t care for others, but I believe if society supports people, they will be better at returning the favor but reducing things like littering and dumping.
In nature, every individual has to fight for survival. The strong eat the weak, there is no justice, only a fight to survive.
Civilized society, in my opinion at least, aspires to be something else, something more. There should be justice. We should not impose on the rights of others without due cause.
Currently, as your question points out, we rely on keeping people desperate enough to do uncomfortable jobs for little pay in order to survive. Our economic polices in the U.S. deliberately keep some percentage of the population desperate, whether that's targeting a 4% unemployment rate, keeping a rock bottom minimum wage, trade policy, healthcare policy, I could go on all day.
What if society didn't function this way? What if the wealth that already exists were distributed in a way that people were not desperate just to survive? One mechanism might be a UBI that was sufficient for bare-minimum housing and food costs. Then we'd have to pay people enough that it was worth their time to do those jobs. Goods and services, especially those currently underpaid, would be more expensive. But the people working those jobs would have a lot more income, which would be spent and re-injected into the economy, probably the local economy. I believe that would tend to bubble up the chain - Why should I deal with all the stress of project deadlines if I could check groceries for a similar paycheck? Things would cost more, but we would also be paid more.
Ultimately I think the goal would be a more equitable distribution of wealth. The counter-argument I usually see is that wealthy individuals have created the wealth they have, and have a right to it. I would disagree, pointing to the same policies above that depress wages and encourage people to take poorly paying jobs.
> What does that look like in terms of actual implementation? Also, where do we draw the line between basic needs and extras?
The most realistic version seems to be Universal Basic Income. Realistic because it’s so simple to implement cf. any system that has to evaluate who is “eligible” and what each person “needs”.
There’s still a debate to be had about how much the UBI should be. Linking it to some linear combination of a food price index and a housing price index seems like a good alternative.
> Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night, etc when they have all of their basic needs met for free?
“Basic needs” could mean many things. Many people arguing for UBI just want to give everyone enough money to afford to rent a small moldy basement and eat something basic for dinner every day. I would assume most people want something more out of life.
Europe (i.e. Austria) seems to have this down pretty well. Of course, the trade-off is no hyper capitalism, really high taxes and getting most innovations much later than most.
On the other hand no Austrian citizen had to worry about starving, affording higher education, landing on the streets, getting medical care, etc. in a long long long(!) while.
This question always seemed strange to me. Jobs that no one wants to do, simply don't get done. Simple. If people want something done, they will do it. Not for pay, but for the community. If everyone is truly too selfish to do vital jobs we have 2 choices. Come up with some other way to accomplish the same thing that people do want to do, or that society fails. It's not what people want to hear, but relying on people to be desperate enough to do jobs which they have no say in, simply to avoid dying, seems like a good recipe for a lot of inequality and resentment. Oh wait...
I hate how the current system is so dead-set on everyone providing every need for themselves while bailing out and subsidizing large corporations.
Consumer spending comprises 68% of GDP, but instead of getting some stability in exchange for driving the largest economy on the planet (by nominal GDP), we have to pay extra taxes on the already-taxed money that we have just for the privilege of buying our own necessities.
I think it may be fair to also obligate able-bodied, of-age, individuals to reciprocate/contribute back in some manner as part of the social contract to receive the benefits to the fullest extent (and those opportunities are obligated to be offered). However I don’t know how this would be implemented equitably or without excessive overhead.
I think if basic needs are met, then abled-bodied and able-minded individuals will still want to work. They'll just be empowered to have more choice in where they work and how much they work for.
The article even alludes to them asking the wrong question when they say that people who value time over money tend to be happier. Perhaps they should ask something to the effect of how much money they need to feel secure about their needs being met.
Not to mention everything costs more when you have less. Bad credit score will have you paying more for your car or house than someone else. Working two jobs you're probably likely to eat worse and more convenient food which costs more.
While wages did obviously start to increase when the economy shifted from selling things to selling time (after all, wages weren't a thing beforehand, so they had nowhere to go but up!) incomes have remained stagnant as far back as the records go. Now that most everyone sells time instead of things, wages and income are basically the same thing, meaning that wages can only increase further if incomes also increase, but that has never happened at least since we started keeping records.
So – Would people actually be happier if they made the same amount of money, but did so selling something other than time? Even if the amount of time required to produce that something was the same as the time input they are giving in exchange for wages?
I've essentially been adjusting my saving/investing to keep my take home at about the same amount since I've reached a certain threshold.
Now, I wouldn't say no to more, but I also don't feel I need more necessarily. Even now, I have about a year's worth of money tucked away "just in case".
And the major reason for the saving/investing is to be able to generate enough cash to cover bills so I'm not reliant on a job for anything.
Well, the question was "How much does your annual salary need to be for you to feel happy/less stressed?". So it's a relative position: how much more money to subjectively improve your life? In that sense it makes sense, given the general diminishing returns of the utility of money, that those with a higher salary would say they need more additional money to be happier: even if they're relatively happy already, it's not something a relatively smaller amount of money is going to change much.
I find the inflection in the percentages somewhat interesting: it reduces from the lower to higher incomes until about 150k, then increases a lot. I wonder if that represents the salary range where financial independence starts to come into sight: then the responses there would be reflecting an estimate of the amount of money they'd need to retire early and live their current lifestyle off their savings.
As you access higher incomes the possibilities of things you could buy expands, thus you want more and more money to afford them, thus requiring bigger pay raises.
At a certain point though you start saving or investing hand over fist the excess you cannot manage to spend. A coca cola costs the same no matter how much you make after all.
Right but the salary ranges here are not that tipping point. Sure, a coke is a coke, but how many people can even consider the other options when it's 5 dozen for $10 for that or 5.99 for 8 Aura Boras? Having significant excess income allows you to stop making minimum choices and start choosing for quality, which leads to lots of benefits. For example, you may want to source your groceries from local farms and small grocers, which keeps money in the local economy rather than pushing it back to shareholders at kroger or amazon. You can afford high quality natural materials for your clothing a la the boots problem, leading to both greater longevity of your own personal wardrobe and also a reduction in microplastics down the road. You can consider the full range of brands of sodas, some of which are both smaller creators and perhaps zero calorie too, making you slightly healthier and at the same time pushing competition in favor of newer innovative companies.
I think what we are seeing in these data is that people with less than enough money to have even started to conceive of these decision points simply don't factor it into their perceived desires for more income at all, and that has a sort of cliff effect on desired salary increases that falls off once people actually get out of the rut of survival wages. No one at 200k is being forced to buy the cheapest everything and pinching the pennies, but theyre also in no way "set for life" unless they've indeed been doing so.
You can do all of this stuff yet the small lot milk is only $8 and the smoothie at Erewhon is only like $10 still. This is what they mean by things being more expensive for poor people. Even with being choosy, prices can only realistically be so high. Say you are a working professional: the local economy by default has to price things such where they are somewhat affordable to a certain number of people to support the business. Unless you live in Monaco chances are you having a degree and using it in your work puts you at the elite end of the wage earning scale in your local city. Therefore to satisfy business cases, things are relatively cheaper for you and relatively more expensive for everyone else. This is true for coca cola, erewhon smoothies, local farmers markets, cars, plane tickets, and homes. Whatever it is. It's even more egregious for the filthy rich. How shameful we let someone like Lionel Messi only pay $10 for an Erewhon smoothie or only $100k for a mercedes considering what that relatively means to their bottom line compared to what it means for ours.
So much this... You hit closer to the 5% mark, and you still have to work and struggle. Having a job hunt take 7 months after surgery is pretty rough when you only had enough set aside for a couple months. You come out in debt up to your eyeballs and have to make as much as before or you're going to have to sell your home and start over at 0. Now looking at 5-10 years to get back to good.
Moving to a better neighborhood, getting a new car next year, or getting more repairs done on your home start taking a back seat. It's hard to even imagine making half as much and trying to hold anything together.
And you're seeing jobs that literally pay what you made 15 years ago for "expert" level experience.
That's probably part of it. In my observation income changes its meaning starting at a certain Point. Most people I know making upwards of 200k EUR pa don't want or need more money to buy more stuff but to keep score with their peers and, in more extreme cases, to distort public opinion -- even if it is only about the local Kindergarten.
Incrementally increasing expenses as your income raises seems dumb, for me there are only three financial levels:
1. Can't afford lifestyle.
2. Can afford lifestyle.
3. Can retire.
Raises and budgeting can take you from 1 -> 2 quickly, but going from 2 -> 3 would require such a humongous raise that even a 10% one would be pointless.
Definitely a privileged take, but it does kinda suck when you are in the "Well at this income level I can safely retire in ~15 years... see ya then". Do you just grind it out safely? Or do you take risks to see if you can jump to number 3 immediately?
Affording a lifestyle is largely about stability of housing costs. If you don't have at least $30k, you can't afford a house, and thus are subject to the whims of your landlord and the rental market. If you have $30k-$300k, you either just bought a house or are looking to buy one (somewhere...). If you have $300k-$3m assets you probably have already owned a house for 10 years and have substantially lower housing costs, so you can coast at your current lifestyle. If you have $3m (including a house) you can retire.
I will never forget starting off my career as a 'contract employee' with no benefits. Working long hours I developed quite a few health problems within the first year. It was nearly impossible to see a doctor and when I finally did I had to fight the insurance company for weeks to cover a visit.
I was making every single meal to save money, my supervisor used to sneak us food from the c-suite catered lunches after we were banned from going upstairs to scavenge their leftovers.
When my contract was up they offered me another contract, after a year I expected to be offered full-time employment with benefits. I asked around to see if this was normal and met someone who had been a contract employee for 5 years. I quit the next week.
I think California passed a law preventing contractor classification abuse shortly after this but it left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.
> left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.
No different than culture in general, is it? If you meet someone walking down the street, you're not likely to hound them to make sure everything is okay and if there is anything you can do to make their stroll better. You are bound to just naturally assume that because they are walking down the street that they are happy to be there and everything is good. You're apt to assume that unless they cry out for help, they don't need another thought.
But maybe they really do need help. You clearly did need the help, but as you kept showing up, there was no reason to think something was wrong in your case either.
59 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadBut I can't hop off, its too boring. Seriously.
I got into a few hobbies during it, but there was something missing about the hobby.
I would try to replace that treadmill running with the hobby, but two things would happen: The hobby stops being fun or you never scratch the treadmill running itch.
I don't really believe we just need to change our psychology or short term behaviors and try to enjoy what other people say they enjoy.
My favorite hobby, reading/audiobook philosophy, can be done with the treadmill life. Best of both worlds.
Agreed.
My inner armchair psychologist wants to ask, “what is fundamentally different between the treadmill and a hobby?” For me, I think it’s doing something that matters for the world. Hobbies on their own tend to be self-enriching (which is essential) while the notion of a treadmill is that you are accomplishing something greater than just yourself. If true, what we are all missing may be a sense of agency to effect meaningful change.
So out of touch. Sure, the >$200k bracket saying they also need a 50% raise to be happier is a bit rich, but for a anyone else, especially <$100k, people don’t have time to make their money work better for them.
The whole complaint about wage stagnation is that people need to work multiple jobs, commute long hours, etc so they don’t have time to eat well, go to the doctor, spend time with kids, or whatever they need to be happier. Whoever says otherwise either doesn’t live in our society or is already over the wage hump of living comfortably.
But too bad apparently, how dare people who aren't legally allowed to be anywhere, be somewhere.
As far as who does the shitty labor jobs, they would need to incentivize that work to make it desirable for people, instead of just expecting someone to need to do it to not die. We are also at a point where a lot of those jobs could be done by machines.
The idea that we need to ensure that a large enough group is struggling enough to work unsavory jobs is a predatory mindset.
If less people want to work a certain job for any reason, that means that the demand is greater than the supply. In that scenario, the traditional way to get people to work those jobs is to offer more money or other compensation.
Just because people have some food, clothing and shelter does not mean that they won't want better food, better clothing or better shelter.
And that will raise the cost of all services and goods, including the cost of having someone's basic needs met. Then we're back to square one, now what?
However, I don't think that's currently the case.
The current cost of things is now predominantly driven by how much could be charged. I see it all the time: "the value of something is determined by the maximum price that the market is willing to pay".
So if the price is based on the maximum they could charge, then they won't be able to raise the prices because they will lose all their customers. They will have to find a more efficient business model.
The place where most cuts should happen is at the top of the pay scale. There is absolutely no good reason that the person who owns the company that picks up my garbage should be making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
But regardless of how they streamline their business models to allow for maximum profitability, one thing is certain...
If we need to employ systemic, predatory behavior that forces people to take unsavory jobs to survive then we are purposefully misunderstanding what a free market really is.
You’ve missed an entire half of the question.
I would love to live in the Star Trek Utopia but you have only attacked my questions as predatory without addressing the whole foundation that is being proposed for this society. People will always be people and there will always be a need for someone to do an undesirable job. When all other jobs are out-competed for, that still leaves someone to either do the undesirable job or just accept basic minimums. The undesirable jobs might change, but the inequality will still be there.
I don’t think they intentionally excluded healthcare or comfortable living from essential needs. Yes the threshold for essential is fuzzy, but it’s a pretty damn low bar that isn’t being met for many people (in the US at least), but could be at a relatively low cost.
Non-basic needs: car ownership, suburban/rural living, living in areas with extreme temperature or acute water supply issues, luxury clothing/electronics/etc.
With regards to the garbage collection example (although they may not apply to all low level jobs): 1. I think wages can only inflate so far before being overwhelmed by employment supply
2. Raising wages for these jobs helps return dignity and respect to them within the community
3. Because labor cost is cheap/suppressed, we have nonoptimal solutions to things like trash collection and I think there are ways to reduce the labor required.
4. I understand people operate for themselves and don’t care for others, but I believe if society supports people, they will be better at returning the favor but reducing things like littering and dumping.
In nature, every individual has to fight for survival. The strong eat the weak, there is no justice, only a fight to survive.
Civilized society, in my opinion at least, aspires to be something else, something more. There should be justice. We should not impose on the rights of others without due cause.
Currently, as your question points out, we rely on keeping people desperate enough to do uncomfortable jobs for little pay in order to survive. Our economic polices in the U.S. deliberately keep some percentage of the population desperate, whether that's targeting a 4% unemployment rate, keeping a rock bottom minimum wage, trade policy, healthcare policy, I could go on all day.
What if society didn't function this way? What if the wealth that already exists were distributed in a way that people were not desperate just to survive? One mechanism might be a UBI that was sufficient for bare-minimum housing and food costs. Then we'd have to pay people enough that it was worth their time to do those jobs. Goods and services, especially those currently underpaid, would be more expensive. But the people working those jobs would have a lot more income, which would be spent and re-injected into the economy, probably the local economy. I believe that would tend to bubble up the chain - Why should I deal with all the stress of project deadlines if I could check groceries for a similar paycheck? Things would cost more, but we would also be paid more.
Ultimately I think the goal would be a more equitable distribution of wealth. The counter-argument I usually see is that wealthy individuals have created the wealth they have, and have a right to it. I would disagree, pointing to the same policies above that depress wages and encourage people to take poorly paying jobs.
Someone's children - which is why the scramble for elite education and employment is so brutal as well.
The most realistic version seems to be Universal Basic Income. Realistic because it’s so simple to implement cf. any system that has to evaluate who is “eligible” and what each person “needs”.
There’s still a debate to be had about how much the UBI should be. Linking it to some linear combination of a food price index and a housing price index seems like a good alternative.
> Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night, etc when they have all of their basic needs met for free?
“Basic needs” could mean many things. Many people arguing for UBI just want to give everyone enough money to afford to rent a small moldy basement and eat something basic for dinner every day. I would assume most people want something more out of life.
On the other hand no Austrian citizen had to worry about starving, affording higher education, landing on the streets, getting medical care, etc. in a long long long(!) while.
Consumer spending comprises 68% of GDP, but instead of getting some stability in exchange for driving the largest economy on the planet (by nominal GDP), we have to pay extra taxes on the already-taxed money that we have just for the privilege of buying our own necessities.
So – Would people actually be happier if they made the same amount of money, but did so selling something other than time? Even if the amount of time required to produce that something was the same as the time input they are giving in exchange for wages?
I've essentially been adjusting my saving/investing to keep my take home at about the same amount since I've reached a certain threshold.
Now, I wouldn't say no to more, but I also don't feel I need more necessarily. Even now, I have about a year's worth of money tucked away "just in case".
And the major reason for the saving/investing is to be able to generate enough cash to cover bills so I'm not reliant on a job for anything.
I find the inflection in the percentages somewhat interesting: it reduces from the lower to higher incomes until about 150k, then increases a lot. I wonder if that represents the salary range where financial independence starts to come into sight: then the responses there would be reflecting an estimate of the amount of money they'd need to retire early and live their current lifestyle off their savings.
I think what we are seeing in these data is that people with less than enough money to have even started to conceive of these decision points simply don't factor it into their perceived desires for more income at all, and that has a sort of cliff effect on desired salary increases that falls off once people actually get out of the rut of survival wages. No one at 200k is being forced to buy the cheapest everything and pinching the pennies, but theyre also in no way "set for life" unless they've indeed been doing so.
Moving to a better neighborhood, getting a new car next year, or getting more repairs done on your home start taking a back seat. It's hard to even imagine making half as much and trying to hold anything together.
And you're seeing jobs that literally pay what you made 15 years ago for "expert" level experience.
I don't know what to think any more.
1. Can't afford lifestyle.
2. Can afford lifestyle.
3. Can retire.
Raises and budgeting can take you from 1 -> 2 quickly, but going from 2 -> 3 would require such a humongous raise that even a 10% one would be pointless.
Definitely a privileged take, but it does kinda suck when you are in the "Well at this income level I can safely retire in ~15 years... see ya then". Do you just grind it out safely? Or do you take risks to see if you can jump to number 3 immediately?
I was making every single meal to save money, my supervisor used to sneak us food from the c-suite catered lunches after we were banned from going upstairs to scavenge their leftovers.
When my contract was up they offered me another contract, after a year I expected to be offered full-time employment with benefits. I asked around to see if this was normal and met someone who had been a contract employee for 5 years. I quit the next week.
I think California passed a law preventing contractor classification abuse shortly after this but it left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.
No different than culture in general, is it? If you meet someone walking down the street, you're not likely to hound them to make sure everything is okay and if there is anything you can do to make their stroll better. You are bound to just naturally assume that because they are walking down the street that they are happy to be there and everything is good. You're apt to assume that unless they cry out for help, they don't need another thought.
But maybe they really do need help. You clearly did need the help, but as you kept showing up, there was no reason to think something was wrong in your case either.
As a kid raised in poverty, that's definitely what I thought.
But the higher you get, the greater your visibility of folks making even more money.
This is coming from someone who started at 60k, currently at >200k.