Dont get much out of things like that? Things like what, like books??

Oh, I just love when there's a thread about 'class' in the US and someone brings in 'oh, but other countries tho!' as if they're really comparable. Lot of other factors(social/political/economic/cultural) are ignored when that train leaves the station. But somehow, they're completely linear in that if a poor person here moved there, they'd suddenly be rich. Um. no. That's not quite how it works. You don't get to just move one part of the population and compare. It's quite a bit more complex.

It also undermines the legitimate complaint of the less fortunate in the country we're talking about. Which, again, usually leads to, 'as long as they aren't eating dirt, they shouldn't complain.'

And btw...Sudan, or any other country for that matter--afaik, never made the claim of being the land of opportunity, championed meritocracy/social mobility and all the other 'merica! rhetoric bs. But somehow when that is called out, people go, 'oh, but other countries yo!'

You mentioned lack of education. I pointed out that broad education in the US has only been available for about 40-50 years, and there are still major problems with access(among other resources). Is it really fair to try and compare and dismiss the plight of those in the US to those in 3rd world countries? It's not exactly like we've cured that problem in our own country yet. What's the point of comparing if not to hand-wave away the problems of the less fortunate in the US?

You're right that the US is like a gated community. But not everyone in that community owns a house. Some are living in a shack (or a make-shift lean-to) by the stream and only allowed to come to the back doors of the kitchens for scraps(or just drink out of the hose in the back) because they're not allowed to drop a fishing line in the stream or plant their own garden. But hey, screw them..at least their within the gate.


Abolish education. Who needs it.

b

First I should point out that $50K is a high starting range for entry level positions.

Most entry level positions are adm. assistants which still has an average salary of the low 40s

What I have witnessed for the last couple of years is 2-3% raises per year with good performance

Promotions can be anywhere from an additional 10-15%. I can promise you a lot of positions are not getting $20K raises until they've had a few raises under their belt.

According to THIS SITE in New York people on average aren't breaking the $100K salary until after 20 years experience.

Even with this I'd bet that this average is skewed by the fact that it would include lawyers, doctors, etc. who are disproportionately pushing that curve up higher.

wil,

You're coming across as very insecure and delusional

Bernie,

You are reading way more into nich's post than is there. All he was saying is that everything is relative, and then he gave some extreme examples of opposite ends of the spectrum. That's it.

I know the term straw man gets thrown around a lot here, but you really straw manned the **** out of him.

Heh. Yeah, I guess you're right, that's what it sounds like I'm saying.

It almost seems as if I'm defensive. Insecure, I could see, but delusional I don't think so at all. If anything I'm trying to be more of a realist.

I guess I'm not doing a good job of that.

I wasn't saying what his intention was, I was saying how that concept tends to be used and why it really means very little to bring in comparisons to other countries when discussing issues within a country.

b

WAT?

You're getting way off point here.

The reason you "need" to read the book is not to find some sort of happiness forumula. It is to understand why your statement is false ("I think people who are rich act rich. They have really expensive designer suits, Rolex's, Porche's, fly first class, etc."). There are plenty of people who are rich who don't act rich. Some of those people are described in the book.

If you scroll up in the thread, you can see that's what I was disagreeing with. I have no idea why you went off this crazy tangent.

But honestly you don't even have to read the book to know your statement is not universally true. I'm sure everyone (even you) knows rich people who don't act rich in the way you described.

try learning about reality before trying to be a realist

Wil lives in a major USA city, spends $250k on his daughters education and expects to retire being worth 8 figures. He also has the free time to sit on his computer posting on internet forums during most hours of the day to discuss how he does not feel rich. Forgive me for finding that a tad delusional.

I believe he was talking about paying for four years of college at some point in the future (though using today's $ amounts). Based on what I've read about the current cost of a college education at a major university, I don't think he's that far off.

Paying for your child's entire college education is simply not an option for most people. I had precisely zero financial support from my parents. I'll be paying off the loans for awhile. (They did buy me some dishes for my apartment though!)

Financial aid for college tends to benefit the rich, too:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/col...d.php?page=all

b

It'd take more than simply "hanging out" with Saudi princes. More like, if you grew up among Saudi royalty, all your friends were Saudi royalty and you had few interactions with people that were not Saudi royalty, odds are you wouldn't consider yourself rich even with that sort of wealth.

We've got anecdotal evidence of this when people claim to be middle class despite mid six-figure incomes. They're probably not all just deluding themselves, they're comparing themselves to the people they know, observing that a significant number of them make more than they do, and so their perception is that they may be above average but still not rich. (This probably applies on the lower end of the income spectrum, too).

The typical reaction ITT is to laugh at such people as being woefully out of touch. And it's true, their pool of acquaintances are very unrepresentative of all Americans. But the same goes for using America as a yardstick - America is very unrepresentative of all humans.

I agree.

That you're being arbitrarily selective with what you're comparing to. "Relative" to your community? Nope. "Relative" to the world? Nope. "Relative" to the country? Correct! The one, true yardstick of economic well-being!

You're simply incorrect. A million dollars is nothing these days. If you are older (40+), have investments that did well along with a relatively decent income, it's pretty achievable. Really, 9.5 million households are in that class.

250k for college is a pretty fair estimate, assuming they get into a top 50 college. Why you even argue this is stupid.

The rest of your post is straight bull****. This is why these conversations turn into pissing matches. You have no idea wtf you are talking about. Other people in the thread who make the same income feel the same as I do. People who make significantly less feel the way you do. Stop working at Walmart.


Googled top 50 colleges according to Business Insider. The 50th school was Davidson College. Current tuition 42,849. With room/board/food it's 58,146. That's the FIFTIETH one.

Anyone who would argue this point is simply being obtuse. (not you, directed at Thayer)

Which further brings me back to my point. Paying in entirety of a child's college education is NOT an option for most people. I distinctly mentioned this as a "cost" for people who make high incomes. If you make a higher income, this is actually an option and it's one that people usually take. Much of that extra "rich" money goes to exactly like expenses like this, which we benefit nothing from in terms of lifestyle. This, once again, supports my claim of not "feeling rich". That 1,000 a month we sock away for her education comes directly from our take home income and isn't meant for us.


Jesus ****ing Christ people. This isn't that hard.

I don't, and I'm pretty close to your salary (humblebrag).

I want to chalk it up to the way the internet doesn't convey tone very well, but stuff like this:

Makes your seem really whiney and out of touch.

I steadfastly stand by my position and thanks for telling me to stop working at Walmart lol


Also, I am not sure why you decided to "argue" the cost of a top college education(which was not being disputed at all) opposed to commenting on the obvious narrative that affording a top level education for children that you can afford to raise in a major city in the United States is a desirable thing to have that not many can afford.

gmafb. You live in pennsylvania. Send your kid to Rape U (the actually 50th school in the nation according to business insider) for 17k a year in tuition.

I'm not whiney at all. I'm just defending my position. I don't feel rich. If you want to continue arguing that, then I don't know what else to say. But people who argue it actually is rich are very much in the category of making significantly less. If you think making 1200 a week is rich, then.. Lol?

Why shouldn't I just send her to a community college and finish her last two years at a state school, right?

Come on dude.

Penn State isn't close to a community college. Come on dude.

Wil, the point is that you don't feel rich because you are ignorant to the plight of the common person. Beautifully illustrated by you with the "lol you".

So you feel that you are not UMC because you're somehow obligated to put that $1000 a month away for college?

I don't even begin to follow the logic