Paycuts felt everywhere

[ccgirl]

I have no problem with people earning a high salary and enjoying the perks. BUT, I also don't feel they should complain when they can't afford an extra MONTH of vacation or their third or fourth house. Maybe if they would have SAVED some of that money they earned, they would have been able to "ride out" a low spot.

The same could be said for everyone else as well. We should all save some of what we earn so we can ride out a low spot.

 

[mrodgers]

If we were all the working class who would we be working for?

I have to say, with the difference between US and THEM growing larger every day, eventually there will come a point where all who can afford to buy the stuff WE are working to make are THEM, how are THEY going to continue to keep US employed?

The same could be said for everyone else as well. We should all save some of what we earn so we can ride out a low spot.

Not all are capable of saving some so they can ride out a low. If you are at a low to begin with, you can't save. 15 years ago, $35k wasn't too bad. You had a family, was able to provide a home and transportation to work, and to feed and keep the family warm. Now 15 years later, the norm is still the same $35k, you just can't provide a home, transportation to work, food, and warmth for that any more. No one's income is cut there, it's just that hiring at $12-15/hour 15 years ago hasn't changed a bit through today. Inflation rises up by 3, 3.5, 4%, whatever. Gas prices rise by 25% at a pop. Food prices rise by 25-50% at a pop. Those big money folks though continued to raise their salaries by the thousands and their bonuses by the hundreds of thousands over the years, yet continue to still pay the workers the same as 15 years ago with measly 1-1.5% raises. $350 per year raise sure doesn't help out much with the increase of a few hundred per month in gas expense along with a few hundred per month food expense.

 

[sam_gordon]

The same could be said for everyone else as well. We should all save some of what we earn so we can ride out a low spot.

Yes, you are correct. But if someone making $35K has less discretionary money to save.

Also, what would do you think the response would be if someone making $50K a year had an article written about him where he was saying he was going to have to cut cable/satellite, cut his cell phone bill, and trade in his (underwater) vehicle because he got a paycut?

I still say he was COUNTING on his BONUS. Anyone else think back to National Lampoon's Christmas vacation?

 

[dmank]

The irony of the article is that these wall street ears are the people that have been ahem, encouraging us to ahem, invest our money with them so we can save for retirement. Why didn't they take their own advice?

Every investment company says to save at least 15% of your salary right? Why?

 

[Sagginit]

the classic story of the ant and the cricket.

honestly i have to say i had no idea until i switched jobs 1.5 years ago and relocating just how expensive the NYC area is. making 40000-60000 elsewhere is good but really you can barely afford to live in Manhattan with that- thus why i dont live there. back in another part of the state where i left that is living well for most people, i no people that live in the city and have to live paycheck to paycheck. i can see how someone making only 250,000 with a few kids would struggle without bonuses. that being said many of these people did not plan ahead, they EXPECTED to make that much for the rest of their lives, which none of us should do.

as my mother says, those that expect nothing are not disappointed when they get nothing.

 

[cm8]

The irony of the article is that these wall street ears are the people that have been ahem, encouraging us to ahem, invest our money with them so we can save for retirement. Why didn't they take their own advice?

Every investment company says to save at least 15% of your salary right? Why?

 

[MrsPete]

Stop hating the people that pay for the freeloading society we have become.

I don't hate people who work hard and make lots of money, but I don't have any sympathy when they cry poor. The man in the article is earning approximately 8Xs my salary (well, I'm not counting my husband's salary), and I'm doing fine with what I have. Yeah, I get that New York is an expensive place to live, but that's a choice he made.

I guess that we're all supposed to feel less sympathy for these people because they work on Wall Street? That's the impression that I get from you because it's neither bolded nor underlined in the article itself.

It appears to me that they are no different than most Americans have been. They lived beyond their means, saved very little and are now having to make adjustments because of it. Funny how we're expected to have compassion for the person who purchased more house than they could afford to pay for (and even bail them out with our tax dollars). But we cannot muster any sympathy for someone who made more money than we do and who is also facing the decision to cut back on discretionary spending.

Disagree. Say you've got a truck driver, a solid middle-class worker who's earning 40,000-50,000/year. Then his hours or his overtime are cut, but suddenly he's making 30,000 instead. That's a huge percentage of his salary, and he can't cut back on a whole lot of things. His kids are already in public school, he's already cooking meals at home and dressing his kids in hand-me-downs from the older cousins. If he has to cut back farther, he's looking at real sacrafices: He's looking at telling his son he can't play football this year, hoping his daughter can borrow a prom dress from an out-of-town cousin, maybe dropping health insurance.

In contrast, the guy who's spending every penny of his 350,000 can cut out a whole lot of stuff without going hungry. He can get rid of one of those car (and the parking fee), he can get rid of the dogs, he can cut back on the month-long vacations . . . and he's still living a more affluent lifestyle than the truck driver. He can cut waaaay back without really making sacrafices. Although he may be forced to do with less than he's had in the past, his kids can still have braces, he can still afford lunch out. His cuts don't equal those of a middle-class person.

Most Americans didn't save. Until this latest recession which was a national wake up call, the savings rate was some thing like -2%.

Rich have not better habits than the poor, they just have bigger checks to do their habits with.

True, but failing to save is a mistake no matter how much you earn. Any person in any salary range could lose that job tomorrow, so putting something aside is just common sense.

Also true: The person with a bigger paycheck can "recover" from failing to save faster. It's just simple math.

I have no problem with people earning a high salary and enjoying the perks. BUT, I also don't feel they should complain when they can't afford an extra MONTH of vacation or their third or fourth house. Maybe if they would have SAVED some of that money they earned, they would have been able to "ride out" a low spot.

My thoughts exactly. Doesn't mean I'm upset with the person for being a high wage-earner, just that the person should manage that money well.

Not all are capable of saving some so they can ride out a low. If you are at a low to begin with, you can't save.

True, the person earning 35,000 needs that to care for a family, but the person earning 350,000 certainly could've made some choices that would've allowed him to save a few dollars here and there.

 

[StuckInKS]

That's right....that's where welfare comes in. Here, you can live on no job and collect welfare for as long as you need it.

I have to step in here and say that this is not how true welfare (aka cash benefits) work. I have worked for the leg of our local government that distributes these types of benefits and NO ONE, no matter the circumstances, is allowed to receive more than 60 months of cash benefits in their entire adult lifetime. Also, if they are not employed, in school or caring for an infant, then every adult member of the household must take mandatory work training to the tune of about 20-30 hrs/week. The benefits are minimal (think $300/mo for a small family with no income or a large family with a little income) and you can be way below the poverty line and still make too much to qualify. Local governments are required to do everything they can to get people off of this program as quickly as possible.

The only true program that is unlimited and has requirements based solely on income and family size (i.e. you do not have to be disabled or be actively seeking work) is food stamps. This I understand because kids need to eat no matter what choices their parents make. However the amount you are able to receive drops quickly as your income rises, so you truly have to be making little to no money (and yes, other benefits like SSI, cash benefits, housing vouchers and even money you receive from family or charity to help pay your bills is calculated in as "income") to receive the highest benefit.

I know that is not what this thread is about, but the statement I quoted is not true.

Personally, I am not against others making a high income. When they make money, they have more to blow on services that I or my family members provide. I think EVERYONE should make wise money choices and save during times of feast to sustain their lifestyle during times famine.

 

[Ember]

I have no problem with people earning a high salary and enjoying the perks. BUT, I also don't feel they should complain when they can't afford an extra MONTH of vacation or their third or fourth house. Maybe if they would have SAVED some of that money they earned, they would have been able to "ride out" a low spot.

I agree, but I think this should apply to everyone. We are an entitled society, and whether it's month long vacations or the newest iPone, many people feel entitled to a certain lifestyle and will complain if their wants aren't met.