***Official Political Discussion Thread***

19445 - autoplay_gif chain gif hat john_cena smackdown smiling wwe.gif
 
am I in the minority when I say, we wouldn't need private school if our public school was much better? I understand private schools will always be around but yeah. it's so ridiculous how such a powerful nation lacks tremendously with their public school system. it might have to do with some people valuing money and quick gratification over substance and intellectual knowledge.
that will be one of our biggest items on the budget beginning next year if my son gets into one of the the kindergartens we're having him apply for. just tuition will be over 20k/ year. we could sell our condo and buy a nice townhouse outside of the city where they have great public schools but then the commute becomes horrible. but this is why i don't consider 150k "rich" and more like rusty said about it being at the higher end of the middle: for that much we have a decent place to live, can afford a private school for our one child, own our 2 cars (cheap ones - a corolla and a prius), take one or two vacations a year (this year was tokyo and cali), luckily my job also covers the health insurance for my whole family, and we can save money in a 529 for my kid and our own 401ks. we do ok but we're not out here buying bmws or rocking chanel bags, and we can't really afford to eat out all the time. i feel super rich and blessed in life though (not too long ago i was homeless in the park).
 
I would say 150k might be slightly above average for a combined income of two ppl

100k for one person is pretty good
 
That's great money for a family of just 2, again I do it with my girl with less than that.
yup, especially for a younger/newlywed couple, 150k/year combined income is pretty good and will get you a 2-bedroom in NYC with plenty to spare.

sure, expenses will go up a lot with kids, especially as they get older, but so will the income, assuming they chose a decent career with opportunity for upward trajectory.

and you're getting to live in a top-3 US city (by anyone's measure) that people pay $1000's for to take vacations to. and not dealing with a 1+ hour commute that a lot of people will do.
 
This is a really good breakdown and explanation by Brookings on Wage growth and stagnation.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/...um=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=thp
Chapter 1: Why have wages been stagnant for so many workers?

Fact 1: The share of economic output workers receive has generally fallen over the past few decades.
Long-term wage stagnation can be traced to many trends, including the decline in labor’s share of income. The portion of national income received by workers fell from 64.5 percent in 1974 Q3 to 56.8 percent in 2017 Q2. Over the past few years the U.S. labor share has ceased falling, but this might reflect the ongoing economic recovery rather than any change in the long-run downward trend.

The fall in labor’s share is not unique to the United States. In other advanced economies, it has also been falling since the 1970s. The declining labor share has been traced to both technological progress as well as to the increase in capital intensity of production (International Monetary Fund 2017; Karabarbounis and Neiman 2014). Analysis has suggested a number of other possible explanations for the United States, including the offshoring of labor-intensive production. A portion of the labor share decline is likely due to difficulty in measuring labor compensation (Elsby, Hobijn, and Sahin 2013; Smith et al. 2017).

One recent study suggests that the fall in the labor share is related to the rise of so-called superstar firms, which the authors argue are likely to have lower labor shares given their high profitability (Autor et al. 2017). Market concentration has increased noticeably over time and could be playing a role in lowering labor’s income share (Furman 2016).
 
Like cubicle jobs pay much any way. Managers at McDonald's might make more than some of those cubicle jobs. Fams has that uneducated thought most poor people have that is white collar workers make much more money than blue collar workers for less work.
 
why are you so dismissive of 70k income?

there are plenty of families like that in America who are raising their kids to be kings and queens, sending them to the top colleges, getting them real careers, buying real estate, etc, you know, stuff with real value that lasts for generations, and not throwing away their money on cars and clothes.
 
Like cubicle jobs pay much any way. Managers at McDonald's might make more than some of those cubicle jobs. Fams has that uneducated thought most poor people have that is white collar workers make much more money than blue collar workers for less work.

Physical wear is no joke.

White collar workers can work for very long years, whereas blue collar workers are much more exposed to occupational hazards (which can cut their careers short or worse).

I'll take a cubicle job over physical labor no matter how much the latter pays. You never know when you're gonna stick your hand in a machine and go from 90k to disability.
 
I will not accept any cubicle slander.

I won't be getting an office until renovations are done at my company. So for the time being I just have this giant cubicle. Got a mini fridge, and a couch in that joint doe.

#CubicleLife
 
Im pretty sure 140k between two people in NYC is enough to be living good in plenty of areas in the city. Even with a couple kids.
 
Who slandered a cubicle job?? All I said was they do not get paid as much as Nina believes they do. Nowhere did I say it was a boring, redundant job. Doesn't matter if you flip burgers or answers phones at a desk all day A job is a job.
 
Back
Top Bottom