We all know it was in the intrest of Democrats to perpetuate poverty...

[rah]

One must always try for a bit more due to the bar being continually raised.
Consider 100,000 dollars seemed like a fortune back in the late 60's but is now considered chump change. To stand pat is really losing ground.

[Elok]

I'm all for saving a reasonable amount, but honestly, if you're a CEO making like $200K a year, or whatever outrageous sum of money CEOs earn, how much of that income do you actually require to live comfortably? Unless they have positively ginormous families, with one or more family members having a rare, debilitating disease insurers won't cover, they have more than they need with plenty left over to save.

Better example: pro athletes. WhyTF do they get fussy and negotiate for a couple more million dollars in their multi-million-dollar contracts? I can't think of anything good to spend that much money on in the first place. Just tacky crap and drugs. I submit to you that many rich people have come to think of money as an end in itself, and not as the means to other ends.

[rah]

if you're a CEO making like $200K a year,

CEO's would laugh at that amount.

[Elok]

And that's my point. Why? What on earth are they spending on, and what are they saving for? They're dragons sleeping on piles of gold, heaping it up for its own sake and never spending it. That attitude is deranged.

[rah]

Actually if you have a few kids going to college and live in a top neighborhood in an above average sized house, 200k a year isn't anywhere near enough. Now I'm not defending them, but just pointing out that 200k doesn't go as far as some people think.

[rah]

And think about it a bit. Back when I was young, you could get a nice Ford mustang for about 3 grand. A similar model today runs 30 grand. (10 time more than then)
So if 20 grand defines you as poor today, when you get older 200k will qualify as poor

[Jon Miller]

One must always try for a bit more due to the bar being continually raised.
Consider 100,000 dollars seemed like a fortune back in the late 60's but is now considered chump change. To stand pat is really losing ground.

Is it being raised faster than inflation?

If so, why?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Actually if you have a few kids going to college and live in a top neighborhood in an above average sized house, 200k a year isn't anywhere near enough. Now I'm not defending them, but just pointing out that 200k doesn't go as far as some people think.

Education/etc is also much more expensive for the wealthy/etc. To live a life of luxury without needing to work I remember a person needing ~10m, and that was 10 years ago.

Of course, most people get by spending a total of ~2m in their lifetime (this is based on lifetime income estimates, so I believe it accounts for inflation/etc).

JM

[Elok]

Okay, so a single person's salary for a year isn't enough. A reasonable amount of savings is fine, and I'm new enough to working that I don't have a keen grasp on how far money goes. But there is a line somewhere that there just isn't any functional point in crossing. Maybe it's $500K/year, maybe more, maybe less. In the context of this thread, let Mr. CEO take a little less so his employees who actually need the cash can take a little more.

[MrFun]

And that's my point. Why? What on earth are they spending on, and what are they saving for? They're dragons sleeping on piles of gold, heaping it up for its own sake and never spending it. That attitude is deranged.

I'm a liberal who is troubled by the widening gap between wealthy and poor, but you cannot ignore the wealthy who give generously to charitable or worthy causes.

[rah]

IT's tougher now with the current interest rates.
Not long ago if you had 1 million and were getting even as low as 5% (and there were times when you were getting 13%) you could live ok on the 50K interest, but now with interest rates closer to 2%, considerable more money is necessary. A lot of retired people are hurting.

[Elok]

Yes, they are exceptions. In their cases, they're not hoarding it at all (this tangent began with the phrase "stockpiling money"), but giving it away.

[rah]

And considering a lot of the retired folks that are in their late 70s and 80s, who grew up in the 30's. They still remember people (parents and relatives) who thought they had a decent amount of money losing everything, so the concept of having too much means something different to them.

[Jon Miller]

CEO's would laugh at that amount.

CEOs didn't use to, and in other countries don't.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

While the CEO pay has grown enormously, what they do and are responsible for/etc has not.

I don't see how this is defensible.

JM

[rah]

In todays world, yes 200K is laughable. Heck, I make considerably more that half that and I'm just a middle manager.
On the other hand, I agree that what they do make is absurd. It's like a rich man's club. They take the job for a few years and eventually when they have a bad year, they get released with a nice parting settlement and then the company hires another CEO from the pool of available experienced CEOs that failed somewhere else.