Just breaks your heart, doesn't it?

[kathymuggle]

:iagree:

 

I truly believe that there are many people out there who just. don't. get it., though. Even if, compared to most of the world, *their own* lifestyles are luxurious.

 

 

 

Bolding mine. I think those words are somewhat assumptive. Some people "may not get it" but some may just disagree with you.

 

I do not doubt their financial issues are real to them and cause them grief and lost sleep. They can vent to their partners or other wealthy friends if they like.

 

I do not think people who are wealthy, though, should complain to the public at large about their income being lower than they would like. It is so entitled. People need to think of their audience when they complain - I would not go on to a special needs forum and complain about my neurotypical child, I would not go onto a cancer forum and complain about my heartburn, and I would not go onto Yahoo Finance and complain about only earning $350000. That does not make my issues invalid, it does mean I need to show common sense, humbleness and compassion and pick my audience appropriately.

 

I never come online and complain about my very median family income as I know it is wrong to complain about such things when others in my community are really struggling.

 

I do know wealth is relative, and the line at which someone can complain to the public without coming across as a self entitled person may vary, but I bet $350000 is no where near the line.

Edited March 2, 2012 by kathymuggle

[Alessandra]

Reading between the lines, it sounds as thought they all have health insurance coverage and/or good health. They should be on their knees crying tears of gratitude.

[4everHis]

:blink: You've got to be kidding me. They should get to the point where there are no options, nothing left to cut, then come back and talk about their stress.

 

Until I saw this quote "People who don't have money don't understand the stress,"

 

I could almost see that, yes, they are having to change their lifestyle and that's hard on anyone, but seriously???? "People who don't have money don't understand?" Now they just appear crazy.:001_huh:

[mommymilkies]

Reading between the lines, it sounds as thought they all have health insurance coverage and/or good health. They should be on their knees crying tears of gratitude.

 

:iagree: :nopity:

[Ester Maria]

I think it is nervy and self-entitled to complain about your very high income when so many in his own country have so little.

Why would the state of things one's country be the ultimate arbiter of when things are tough for somebody and when one should be 'allowed' to complain? What is it so magical about political borders?

Why would one not compare oneself, for example, to people in their own social circles? Why would that be a less valid comparison for somebody than one with an average state of things in one's country, or in the world? Which gets us here:

There are two types of poverty - absolute and relative. The man in the article is in neither type of poverty.

Relative to whom? Many of the "have"s in the recent years have had a hard time keeping up with other "have"s which happen to be their friends, their family, and their colleagues. Yes, their children may attend expensive private schools - but the emotional stress of perhaps having to pull them out of those schools and of not being able to afford to their children the lifestyle they are used to and their friends have, is *their* equivalent of the emotional stress we more often read about, when less wealthy people have difficulties keeping up with other less wealthy people and with what they are used to as a lifestyle. The principle is the same, it is only the parameters that are different. Somebody may complain over not being able to afford a $.5 chocolate and somebody over not being able to afford a $10 chocolate - but within each person's life framework, the significance of that chocolate is roughly the same: they are losing something which is strictly speaking not a "need", but which they are used to as a normal part of their lifestyle.

I do not think people who are wealthy, though, should complain to the public at large about their income being lower than they would like. It is so entitled. People need to think of their audience when they complain - I would not go on to a special needs forum and complain about my neurotypical child, I would not go onto a cancer forum and complain about my heartburn, and I would not go onto Yahoo Finance and complain about only earning $350000. That does not make my issues invalid, it does mean I need to show common sense, humbleness and compassion and pick my audience appropriately.

I agree with some of these sentiments, but the *public media sphere* does not have such a narrowly assumed audience. It is a media space that belongs to everybody, IMO. I did not get an impression those people were complaining "to" somebody, more like, that they were simply amongst the legitimate voices in a public sphere comprising ALL. "ALL" includes both the wealthy and the poor, both the healthy and the ill, not only one side of the coin.

 

Now, yes, if they went to an area striken with poverty, with all poor people around them, and had a loud chat about how bad life is for them at the moment, with these specifics, that would be insensitive.

 

But the public media sphere belongs to all. Why should one group of people be allowed to use it to "vent", while others are suggested to keep their vents strictly to a private sphere, lest they offend? According to that logic, parents of healthy children should also never speak out loud lest they offend and should count their blessings.

[MHowell]

I really think the interview had to of been edited. No one in their right mind talks to a reported like that.

 

And I am shocked so many of you are showing so much disdain for these people. Everyone has their own level of poverty. We have a nice car, and a nice house, but we also just paid taxes. And even though we planned for them to be higher this year, I was not expecting a 5 figure tax bill. Our extra savings is almost nonexistent now. We won't be eating out, or shopping, or anything extra for a very long time. I have nightmares about the what if's now that we have nothing to fall back on. How does that make me less of a person than you are?! How does that make MY FINANCIAL worries less than yours?! We are now one emergency away from not being able to pay our bills, even though we saved. We won't be sending our son to a private school next year, even though our home school is failing. We are praying he gets into the charter that is in a town 20 minutes away.

 

Being self employed is the greatest and scariest thing in the world right now. We are being taxed to death, and at the end of the day, the public wants to ask who we are to complain... when we can't pay our employees everyone will.

[SKL]

First, I agree that the article was slanted and the individual(s) "quoted" sounded like they were out of touch. However, some of the comments here go way beyond the given fact pattern and basically say that nobody who makes over $x has a right to feel anything but happy with their lot. In fact, some here seem to think they should feel guilty for having more than others. My comments are toward this attitude, which I consider just as "out of touch" as the guy who cries over having to cut back on his expensive vacation.

 

This is a homeschooling forum. A whole forum built for moms who have the luxury of choosing to do something other than work to keep their kids from starving. Some have gotten on this forum and complained about their hard lot. That could be painful for some moms who have it a lot worse. Some of you have complained about how hard it is to make a living on temporary public assistance such as your husband's unemployment comp. Meanwhile, other moms are paying income / payroll taxes that finance your benefits. The forum occasionally talks about how much better homeschoolers are than these moms who are working to feed their kids and paying taxes to benefit everyone, including homeschoolers. Now is it really fair to say that someone complaining about a problem we don't have is the one who is "out of touch"?

[jenL]

nm.

[SKL]

Being self employed is the greatest and scariest thing in the world right now. We are being taxed to death, and at the end of the day, the public wants to ask who we are to complain... when we can't pay our employees everyone will.

 

Right there with you! When I was childless, I worked 80+ hours per week and lived frugally to build up savings that should be for my kids' education. (All while paying a large % to the tax man to make up for those who don't / can't.) Now my savings are dwindling with every tax bill - and my personal expenses are low by any US standard. Yet who am I to complain? I really don't complain for the sake of complaining, but when this kind of topic comes up, I have to say it's unfair. I can't sit at home (single mom) and now I may not be able to put my kids through parochial schools (which are NOT $30K/year here), but I can continue to pay huge amounts of taxes to assist others. And I should be happy for the opportunity.

[kathymuggle]

Why would the state of things one's country be the ultimate arbiter of when things are tough for somebody and when one should be 'allowed' to complain? What is it so magical about political borders?

Why would one not compare oneself, for example, to people in their own social circles?

 

I do not consider myself solely a global citizen. I am a Canadian first.

 

Quite frankly, if we are thinking globally, then the people in the article have even less right to complain ;)

 

I think of myself As Canadian first because:

 

-it is my home

-I have the right to vote here, more opportunities to affect change here and I know of some of the issues here.

 

____________

 

 

Here are a few things people in the article complained about:

 

-difficulty affording a summer vacation rental

-bonuses at one company were capped at 125 000 (the horror!)

-500 a month parking fees

-7500 a year golf and gun membership fees

-17 000 spent on doggie care.

 

None of the above is worthy of complaint, and to think it is is very entitled, IMHO.

 

People who are financially well off can have real financial issues, but the article did a poor job of protraying it. Moreover, even though everyone at every level can feel financial stress, I would argue that those in poverty have it worse. Worrying about whether or not you can afford a private school is not in the same class of worries as worrying about whether or not you can feed and house said child. They are just not.

[Cindyg]

My husband runs a nonprofit organization, and I can tell you that when the "rich" are cash poor, donations are down everywhere. It's not easy to sell off a big house (or rent out the back bedroom) when you're low on cash.

 

And, btw, I have a horse and a pool and just one kid and I don't work; so plenty of people would think I'm "rich." We set up this lifestyle when we could afford it. Now all of our expenses have skyrocketed and our income has plummeted. I have cut our expenditures to the bone, but the horse has to be fed. (He's too old to sell.) The property taxes have to be paid. And, again, I can't sell off the pool. Things are very difficult.

 

I'll be happy when ALL the income levels have a bit of breathing room.

[mommymilkies]

 

Here are a few things people in the article complained about:

 

-difficulty affording a summer vacation rental

-bonuses at one company were capped at 125 000 (the horror!)

-500 a month parking fees

-7500 a year golf and gun membership fees

-17 000 spent on doggie care.

 

None of the above is worthy of complaint, and to think it is is very entitled, IMHO.

 

People who are financially well off can have real financial issues, but the article did a poor job of protraying it. Moreover, even though everyone at every level can feel financial stress, I would argue that those in poverty have it worse. Worrying about whether or not you can afford a private school is not in the same class of worries as worrying about whether or not you can feed and house said child. They are just not.

:iagree: Sure, they have the right to complain. But I also have the right to not give a flying fig about their "problems".

[-M-]

My husband runs a nonprofit organization, and I can tell you that when the "rich" are cash poor, donations are down everywhere. It's not easy to sell off a big house (or rent out the back bedroom) when you're low on cash.

 

This.

 

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. What will the "decline of the omnivore" coupled with a precipitous drop in contributions mean for museums and theaters, something dear to me and mine?

 

And if the arts aren't your "thing," consider, for example, what this economic crisis -- which affects people of every income level -- has done to food banks: There are fewer and smaller contributions but a much greater need.

 

The tone of the linked article is ill-advised, at best, but that aside, I do think it shortsighted to refuse to acknowledge how widespread the effects of this economic crisis are; how this means that everyone -- yes, even the wealthy -- suffers; and how this suffering, in turn, affects charitable giving.

[joannqn]

I also don't mind the rich being rich. I don't think the rich should be taxed at a higher rate as everyone else. But I do have trouble feeling any sympathy about the extra cars, parking spaces, vacations, or even having four people "crammed" in a 1200 square foot home.

 

I laughed at the last one because I've had six people in a 1200 square foot home and we felt it was plenty of space.

 

I also thought the idea of going to a different store to pay $5.99lb for salmon was funny considering I left behind the $4.99lb for salmon yesterday because it was still too expensive. (I initially looked because it had a 50% off sticker on it.) We haven't had fish for dinner in a long time.

 

I'd love to have a budget meeting with these people. I'll show you mine if you show me yours, and then we can talk about how you could make ends meet.

[Mergath]

I also don't care if they feel stressed. I would too, in their place. However, I think it's ludicrous that they bemoan their problems to a reporter expecting the country to rise up in sympathy for them. I mean, come on. If they're making that much money, they aren't stupid. They know there are people in this country that can't pay for enough food or safe shelter. Knowing that, if they still choose to complain publicly about where to park the spare Audi, they deserve to be laughed at.

[LibraryLover]

:iagree: Sure, they have the right to complain. But I also have the right to not give a flying fig about their "problems".

 

So true.

Edited March 3, 2012 by LibraryLover

[ErinE]

People in the finance industry are generally, and especially now, sensitive to any bad publicity. I could see the reporter approaching these men, claiming he was doing a report on economic ramifications of the declining bonuses. The WSJ does articles like this all the time, but usually is very careful to approach it from a finance standpoint: which industries will decline or how much will tax receipts drop because bonuses are lower.

 

The reporter might have started the conversation with, "What are you cutting back on now that your income has been cut in half?"

 

I don't have a hard time imagining a long conversation that meanders from lowering charitable donations, cutting down on vacations, and pulling the kids out of school to throw away comments like:

 

The pets

"We paid $17,000 last year to take care of Fluffy and Rex! Can you believe it? Wow, did I waste a lot of money."

 

The sportscar

"We had three cars but we got rid of the other two."

Later in the conversation, "What kind of car do you drive now?"

"A Porsche Carbiolet. It's the Volkswagen of sports cars, ha ha, right? We looked into returning it, but we're upside down on the loan."

 

If the reporter is good, he can draw out a conversation and lead it until he gets the soundbites.

[Catwoman]

Here are a few things people in the article complained about:

...

-500 a month parking fees

 

...

None of the above is worthy of complaint, and to think it is is very entitled, IMHO.

 

Wow, people are really focusing on that parking space. :D

 

If you have never lived in NYC, you have no idea how important that parking spot is. And depending on your neighborhood, $500 per month is not an exorbitant fee for it. (And don't even get me started on how much it costs to buy a parking spot. :D)

[Catwoman]

I also don't care if they feel stressed. I would too, in their place. However, I think it's ludicrous that they bemoan their problems to a reporter expecting the country to rise up in sympathy for them. I mean, come on. If they're making that much money, they aren't stupid. They know there are people in this country that can't pay for enough food or safe shelter. Knowing that, if they still choose to complain publicly about where to park the spare Audi, they deserve to be laughed at.

 

I have a feeling they weren't complaining that they were poor, or that anyone should rise up in sympathy for them.

 

My suspicion is that some idiot reporter came to them and said, "Hey, I'm writing a piece on how people are cutting back on their spending as a result of the tough economy," and so they told him a few ways they were scaling back on their lifestyles. I didn't get the impression that they were trying to get people to feel sorry for them, just that they'd had to make changes and that they weren't thrilled about it.

 

I'll bet if we saw a complete transcript of those interviews, we would walk away with a far different impression of the interviewees. They probably believed the article was going to be entirely different from the one we read.

 

And BTW, if the guy in the article is only driving two Audis, he's not that successful. ;)

[kalanamak]

Hard to have sympathy, but it is a terrible sign for the economy. The rich buy stuff, build stuff, eat out, fly, go on vacations, etc

 

:iagree:"The rich catch the sniffles, the poor come down with the cold."

[Catwoman]

Oh you couldn't be more right My parents live in a very well-off neighborhood, and you couldn't find nicer people around. One of the neighbors let my DH and I stay her in mountain trail-side ski vacation home for a weekend when we went up to Vermont in October. Very nice people, who also hit a rough patch and have a renter living in their pool house to help pay for their bills.

 

So yes, rich people can fall on hard times, but most recognize and adapt- or save. That is the key difference that I take issue with- those who do not adapt and continue to live a $500k plus lifestyle and expect that things in their life do not have to change.

 

This is a bit personal for me, I admit, my DH's family used to be in the 250k+ plus club. They had a nice home, and went bankrupt due to poor spending and planning habits.

 

It can happen. But, being able to adapt is the key difference here!

 

Sorry I was so hard on you in my post. :blushing:

 

I didn't realize you were speaking as you were because you had personal experiences with your DH's family being irresponsible with their money. After reading that, I can absolutely understand why your initial impression of the people in the article would have been very negative. I know a few families who fit the same description, and who simply put their heads in the sand and refused to adapt when the $$$ stopped rolling in, and I don't feel sorry for them when they whine about having no more money, either. They consistently spent far more than they made (well over $500k per year,) and racked up huge debts, and then filed for bankruptcy and left a lot of people in the lurch. And then they thought people should feel sorry for them. :glare:

 

Again, sorry about that! :001_smile:

[LucyStoner]

My husband runs a nonprofit organization, and I can tell you that when the "rich" are cash poor, donations are down everywhere. It's not easy to sell off a big house (or rent out the back bedroom) when you're low on cash.

 

Overall, individual donations have dipped only 1 year. Most people give regardless of income, most people still have jobs, and the people giving the most generously are people making middle incomes, not the top earners. Philanthropy is not about wealth, it is about generosity. I have worked as a non-profit fundraiser this entire recession and was able to grow year of year fundraising results every year despite the downturn. Many of my colleagues have done the same by focusing on donor centered, all size of donor, fundraising efforts rather than only focusing on the reduced means of their top donors.

[kathymuggle]

Wow, people are really focusing on that parking space. :D

 

If you have never lived in NYC, you have no idea how important that parking spot is. And depending on your neighborhood, $500 per month is not an exorbitant fee for it. (And don't even get me started on how much it costs to buy a parking spot. :D)

 

No…but I did see the Mad About You episode :D

 

Actually, I find the 500 price tag for parking less shocking than the other expenses sited in the article.

[Cindyg]

Overall, individual donations have dipped only 1 year....

 

Then let me clarify that individuals are not the only ones who donate. Corporations and foundations also donate, and they are also pinched.

[LucyStoner]

Until I saw this quote "People who don't have money don't understand the stress,"

 

I could almost see that, yes, they are having to change their lifestyle and that's hard on anyone, but seriously???? "People who don't have money don't understand?" Now they just appear crazy.:001_huh:

 

The person who said that is a financial planner for the rich commenting on his clientele. I think it's ridiculous but I see the point from his perspective. Many people without money falsely assume that money stress goes away when you are rich. So of course people often don't understand why it could be stressful to have money like that. Regardless of how privileged/rare it is to have that stress, the pressure to keep up is large. At the possibility of losing it all, some people have felt stressed enough to commit suicide. That is real stress regardless of if the person is rich or not.

 

I grew up very poor (like not having decent shoes and living at times in a van and a motel) and we are pretty comfortable now. I feel very fortunate to know that I can live well and be happy even when "poor". For my friends who did not grow up poor, I actually think the economy causes MORE stress. Because I already know what I could and would do if the worst happened.

[LucyStoner]

Then let me clarify that individuals are not the only ones who donate. Corporations and foundations also donate, and they are also pinched.

 

Corporations account for a mere 5% of charitable dollars. Foundations? Less than 15% (and that includes many who function as individuals- smallish family foundations without a granting process where the gifts are made on a personal relationship or commitment to a cause.) Individuals+bequests from individuals are 80%+ of charitable giving. So while not the only ones, individuals are most of the market for charitable donations by far.

 

http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm

 

2010 all giving took an uptick and 2011 is assumed to be the same. We live in a generous country, where people care about others even more during hard times.

[Ester Maria]

I do not consider myself solely a global citizen. I am a Canadian first.

Fair enough.

But what if those people, by their own self-identification, are "well to do NYCers" first, Americans second, global citizens third?

Or, what if their first and primary self-identification is with their social circles (of their friends, family, colleagues, subculture) and THAT is the standard they wish to live up to and compare themselves to FIRST - and only after that consider what is going on in the US and the rest of the world?

 

I do not see anything morally problematic, strictly speaking, with that perspective. Myopic, perhaps, but not morally problematic. After all, America is a proud individualist society. Why would they not consider first and foremost their own specific subculture, and then everything else, when judging what is normal for them?

Worrying about whether or not you can afford a private school is not in the same class of worries as worrying about whether or not you can feed and house said child. They are just not.

That I agree with.

Many people without money falsely assume that money stress goes away when you are rich. So of course people often don't understand why it could be stressful to have money like that. Regardless of how privileged/rare it is to have that stress, the pressure to keep up is large. At the possibility of losing it all, some people have felt stressed enough to commit suicide. That is real stress regardless of if the person is rich or not.

Yep.

I have a feeling they weren't complaining that they were poor, or that anyone should rise up in sympathy for them.

 

My suspicion is that some idiot reporter came to them and said, "Hey, I'm writing a piece on how people are cutting back on their spending as a result of the tough economy," and so they told him a few ways they were scaling back on their lifestyles. I didn't get the impression that they were trying to get people to feel sorry for them, just that they'd had to make changes and that they weren't thrilled about it.

That was my impression too.

[Mergath]

I have a feeling they weren't complaining that they were poor, or that anyone should rise up in sympathy for them.

 

My suspicion is that some idiot reporter came to them and said, "Hey, I'm writing a piece on how people are cutting back on their spending as a result of the tough economy," and so they told him a few ways they were scaling back on their lifestyles. I didn't get the impression that they were trying to get people to feel sorry for them, just that they'd had to make changes and that they weren't thrilled about it.

 

I'll bet if we saw a complete transcript of those interviews, we would walk away with a far different impression of the interviewees. They probably believed the article was going to be entirely different from the one we read.

 

And BTW, if the guy in the article is only driving two Audis, he's not that successful. ;)

 

That could certainly be true, and if it is, they really should complain to somebody.

 

Either way, the article is still good for a giggle for those of us, er, not in the same situation. Somehow, laughing at someone who spends that much on his dogs makes me feel better about my own life, not worse.

[justasque]

....I could see the reporter approaching these men, claiming he was doing a report on economic ramifications of the declining bonuses. The WSJ does articles like this all the time, but usually is very careful to approach it from a finance standpoint: which industries will decline or how much will tax receipts drop because bonuses are lower.

 

The reporter might have started the conversation with, "What are you cutting back on now that your income has been cut in half?"

 

I don't have a hard time imagining a long conversation that meanders from lowering charitable donations, cutting down on vacations, and pulling the kids out of school to throw away comments like:

 

The pets

"We paid $17,000 last year to take care of Fluffy and Rex! Can you believe it? Wow, did I waste a lot of money."

 

The sportscar

"We had three cars but we got rid of the other two."

Later in the conversation, "What kind of car do you drive now?"

"A Porsche Carbiolet. It's the Volkswagen of sports cars, ha ha, right? We looked into returning it, but we're upside down on the loan."

 

If the reporter is good, he can draw out a conversation and lead it until he gets the soundbites.

 

I have a feeling they weren't complaining that they were poor, or that anyone should rise up in sympathy for them.

 

My suspicion is that some idiot reporter came to them and said, "Hey, I'm writing a piece on how people are cutting back on their spending as a result of the tough economy," and so they told him a few ways they were scaling back on their lifestyles. I didn't get the impression that they were trying to get people to feel sorry for them, just that they'd had to make changes and that they weren't thrilled about it.

 

I'll bet if we saw a complete transcript of those interviews, we would walk away with a far different impression of the interviewees. They probably believed the article was going to be entirely different from the one we read.

 

:iagree:

 

I was interviewed for a story about a breastfeeding-in-public incident once. The reporters were *very* skilled. They started by building rapport, getting us to feel very relaxed with them, etc., then turned the camera on and did the "official" interview, then wrapped it up but did NOT turn the camera off (while giving a strong impression that they had), then chatted a bit in a very casual way. They really, really wanted us to say something radical during some part of that, so they could use JUST that snippet.

 

The best they could get out of us was "we are concerned that mothers may choose not to bf because they are afraid that a similar incident would happen to them." No condemnation of the person/organization that hassled the mom, etc., which is what they were looking for. But we very much realized that had we said anything at all radical, that's what they would have used. They poked and prodded and tried so hard (and so pleasantly) to lead us to say what they wanted us to say. Had we not been pretty darn savvy/skeptical, we would have fallen for it. Since, then, I've taken every news quote as an assumed-to-be-out-of-context remark until proven otherwise.

 

So I wouldn't assume that the folks who were interviewed for this story are really that insensitive and obnoxious. And the writer got his/her pageviews, didn't they?

[SKL]

:iagree:

 

I was interviewed for a story about a breastfeeding-in-public incident once. The reporters were *very* skilled. They started by building rapport, getting us to feel very relaxed with them, etc., then turned the camera on and did the "official" interview, then wrapped it up but did NOT turn the camera off (while giving a strong impression that they had), then chatted a bit in a very casual way. They really, really wanted us to say something radical during some part of that, so they could use JUST that snippet.

 

 

There don't seem to be any ethics in journalism. So be careful what you believe.

 

Luckily I was first interviewed as a teen, starting up a new business (a used book store). Two separate papers. Both completely made up stuff that I never said, and printed it as "quotes." Granted, the misquotes were inoffensive, but it taught me to be VERY cynical when it comes to being interviewed.

[justasque]

Follow-up story from NPR.

[Carpe]

I want to feel sorry for these people but I can't help but think that everyone in the financial industry ought to know better. As in they should know to save for the possibility of a reduction in their bonuses.

 

The follow up article does clear up a couple things about the one man, but there were more interviewed who allegedly said some equally ridiculous things. I'd be interested in hear their side of the story as well.

[Impish]

I think that when you're making a huge salary (and to me, $300k + is) it's easy to lose touch w/the reality that faces the average person, and develop an attitude of entitlement that is shocking to the average individual on the outside looking in.

 

That being said, it's not an attitude that belongs solely to those in the 6 figure income bracket. There are those on far more modest incomes that resent giving up their 'luxuries', be it more expensive clothing, a new car every x# of yrs, daily trips to Starbucks, whatever their particular indulgence may be.

 

(Note that I'm not saying indulgences or luxuries are bad in and of themselves)

 

Ppl tend to live above their personal income, and when it takes a hit, there's panic, regardless of how much money they might be making.

 

That being said, none of the ppl in the article are facing going hungry, their kids not having boots and proper winter coats, etc, so I personally do find it difficult to sympathize w/their financial situation.

 

When you've *really* been poor, you have a rather jaundiced view of someone who makes more $ than you do in yrs complaining about not taking the vacation they used to.

 

Honestly, I about choked when they said that 30k wouldn't cover the private tuition bill. So many yrs, esp as a single parent, I lived on less for a year. Way less...cause I remember being *excited* about taking a job that would have me gross that.

[Mommy22alyns]

I do not consider myself solely a global citizen. I am a Canadian first.

 

Quite frankly, if we are thinking globally, then the people in the article have even less right to complain ;)

 

I think of myself As Canadian first because:

 

-it is my home

-I have the right to vote here, more opportunities to affect change here and I know of some of the issues here.

 

____________

 

 

Here are a few things people in the article complained about:

 

-difficulty affording a summer vacation rental

-bonuses at one company were capped at 125 000 (the horror!)

-500 a month parking fees

-7500 a year golf and gun membership fees

-17 000 spent on doggie care.

 

None of the above is worthy of complaint, and to think it is is very entitled, IMHO.

 

People who are financially well off can have real financial issues, but the article did a poor job of protraying it. Moreover, even though everyone at every level can feel financial stress, I would argue that those in poverty have it worse. Worrying about whether or not you can afford a private school is not in the same class of worries as worrying about whether or not you can feed and house said child. They are just not.

 

 

Bolded, exactly.

[justamouse]

120,000 in in the city is just getting by. I know that's just not fully understood by many that don't live around here, but 120,000 in NYC is deciding which bills you're going to pay.

[usetoschool]

Follow-up story from NPR.

 

Thanks for finding this. It does make the story more complete.

[Catwoman]

120,000 in in the city is just getting by. I know that's just not fully understood by many that don't live around here, but 120,000 in NYC is deciding which bills you're going to pay.

 

:iagree:

 

And it's not "just getting by" at any level of luxury, either. You're basically living in a shoebox, and believe me, it's not a glamorous shoebox in a wonderful neighborhood, either.

[Mergath]

:iagree:

 

And it's not "just getting by" at any level of luxury, either. You're basically living in a shoebox, and believe me, it's not a glamorous shoebox in a wonderful neighborhood, either.

 

I've always been under the impression that almost everyone in NYC lives in a shoebox. It's the price they pay for access to some of the best cultural opportunities in the world. ;)

[LibraryLover]

I've always been under the impression that almost everyone in NYC lives in a shoebox. It's the price they pay for access to some of the best cultural opportunities in the world. ;)

 

Friends do live the shoebox way, because it is often the only way.

Edited March 3, 2012 by LibraryLover

[elegantlion]

I like the last line in the follow-up article.

 

For all the grief — and colorful emails — he's been getting, Schiff says the bright side to all the unwanted attention is that it has people talking. "It's possible to build some common ground," he says, "by just having a frank discussion."

 

We've never been wealthy, we've done okay before, and now, well, we're not. I do find it hard to garner sympathy for the loss of luxuries, but we'd probably be complaining to if 60 to 80 percent of our income vanished. I would imagine many of those people went into that field because they knew it would help them attain a certain lifestyle. Maybe they're starting to see that the trade offs aren't worth it.

 

I think many of us that have had to downsize lifestyle in chaos or to avoid chaos have learned many lessons. We probably put higher priority on simple things, but that doesn't mean wealthy people aren't grateful for their lifestyles and aren't allowed to mourn losing it.

 

I didn't read the article because I know it would tick me off. We've had to give up and do without for the last few years. I don't want to hear that the 30k you spend on your child's education is for one year, that's probably more than I'll spend on all 12 of my son's. If we had 30k per year we'd probably read Homer while visiting Greece. We'd read Herodotus while floating down the Nile on tour boat. Now that would be a worthy investment.

[Catwoman]

I was thinking that the $32k per year, per child, school tuition was pretty on-target, because the private school we'd considered when we were still a bit undecided about homeschooling now costs about $31k for eighth grade, not including transportation, but I think it may include books. (It costs about $25k for kindergarten and the price goes up each grade after that.) The high school we would have chosen costs about $28k per year, plus books and transportation, which would add another $3500 or so.

 

In retrospect, I am so glad we decided to homeschool instead, because even though I spend quite a bit on curriculum and other educational stuff, it's definitely nowhere near $30k per year -- not even remotely close to that much! But at the time, when ds would have been entering kindergarten, we just assumed the school tuition was a "normal" cost, so I'm sure the person quoted in the article felt the same way when he signed his kids up for school. I doubt he and his wife were trying to show off; they probably just wanted to be sure their kids went to good schools, and the tuition cost is what it is, and they were stuck with it.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Catwoman

[LibraryLover]

Follow-up story from NPR.

 

 

Very interesting, and apropos of what I have experienced. These people are not all (most are) demons.

Edited March 3, 2012 by LibraryLover

[readinmom]

Oh, the horrors of having to hand wash dishes!

 

Only three months instead of the four for a vacation house?

 

:lol:

 

 

Get a grip! So completely out of touch with the real America

[Pink Fairy]

Very interesting, and apropos of what I have experienced. These people are not all (most are) demons.

 

 

:lol: I'm 99.9% sure this is tongue-in-cheek. Tickled my funny bone. :lol:

 

Not demons. Just insensitive and lacking perspective. Like a caricature of rich people.

[SKL]

I would imagine many of those people went into that field because they knew it would help them attain a certain lifestyle. Maybe they're starting to see that the trade offs aren't worth it.

 

...

 

I don't want to hear that the 30k you spend on your child's education is for one year, that's probably more than I'll spend on all 12 of my son's.

 

When I was in a "high-power" career, I was regularly told that if I had any desire to advance in my career, I needed to be willing to move to one of the big cities - mainly New York or DC - or I could just forget about it. I resisted, but many people do leave their communities and move to those cities because they see no other opportunities for growth in their fields. Does that make them bad people? Once you're in that situation, you have this arbitrarily huge cost of living that is covered by your salary, but then your family grows and you need to send your kids to school. Who's going to send their kids to the DC or NYC public schools unless they absolutely have to? Not everyone can homeschool. So that leaves private schools, all of which happen to be very expensive. Does that make these people awful?

 

And when things go south, what are they supposed to do? Do you really blame them for wishing very hard to be able to keep their kids out of the public schools? I don't.

 

There but for the grace of God go I. Luckily for me, I was too risk-averse to do what the average person in my shoes would have done.

[Catwoman]

Oh, the horrors of having to hand wash dishes!

 

 

Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be pretty horrible. :ack2:

 

Just saying... :D

Edited March 3, 2012 by Catwoman

[Pink Fairy]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be pretty horrible. :ack2:

 

Just saying... :D

 

If your dishwasher dies, as mine did, it's extremely important to have children who are able to do the dishes until you can get a replacement. In fact, all chores should be done by children. That's why we had five kids, and would like more. :lol: Perhaps the suffering rich could look into procreating some dog walkers and housekeepers. I'm just trying to think outside the box. :D

[stansclan89]

If your dishwasher dies, as mine did, it's extremely important to have children who are able to do the dishes until you can get a replacement. In fact, all chores should be done by children. That's why we had five kids, and would like more. :lol: Perhaps the suffering rich could look into procreating some dog walkers and housekeepers. I'm just trying to think outside the box. :D

 

Worked for us ;).

[stansclan89]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be pretty horrible. :ack2:

 

Just saying... :D

 

It's not too bad. We've been without a dishwasher more often than we've had one in the 22 years of marriage. I'd guess we've had 15 years without if you added it all up.

 

ETA

If we were making $200,000 a year I would find the money to install a dishwasher. Definitely wouldn't be complaining about not having one when there were other options...

Edited March 3, 2012 by stansclan89

[mommaduck]

"people who don't have the money, don't understand the stress"

 

on one hand :lol:

 

on the other...it may be true.

 

Someone I know has a lot...he dives right in for the best, but then he has to figure out how to pay for all of it. He literally HAS to bring in a (exorbitant amount) in order not to lose what he has (and in this economy, he would not be likely to get his house to sell or his car to sell, etc). He actually told me once that he kinda envied us. We may be dirt poor, but we have basic bills and no real debt (other than medical bills). Yes, we struggle. Yes, my husband works his tail off. However, my husband is home every night and our family is together every night. Not so for this gent.

 

I tell you what though...if that man isn't happy with his bonus, he can just have it sent to us! Heck of a lot more than my husband makes!

Edited March 3, 2012 by mommaduck