Anonymous wrote:We are 76%. I am pretty disgusted by all the people moaning about how hard it is to live in DC in the 90%+. If you feel that way, I would suggest that you are living above your means and there are plenty of ways to adjust that. Buy a less expensive house in a less desirable neighborhood. Send your child to public school. Buy used cars. And most importantly, stop trying to keep up with your neighbors. Change your social circle.

Don't complain about making that amount of money. I don't complain about our HHI. I feel fortunate to live in city with jobs, free museums, and some of the best public schools in the country. And we make a lot less than you but a lot more than most people in the country, even considering the cost of living here. Between my husband and I we have 5 degrees (2 undergrads, 2 masters, and a doctorate). We just made the decision to go into a field we love (the arts) knowing it wouldn't be financially rewarding, but would be emotionally rewarding.

Grow up. And volunteer (don't just donate money) - maybe you will get a little perspective.

Such judgments depend on context. .... "Wealthy" compared with what? The relevant context here is the growing gap between the rich and the poor. That makes the poor feel poorer, but it also makes the rich at the bottom end of the spectrum feel poor as well.

Why don’t people at the 90th percentile of the income distribution feel particularly rich? The answer is simple: because any Americans who are richer than this cohort are so much richer. ... Those in the middle earn a little less than people a few percentiles up from them, whereas those at the top earn a lot less than their counterparts in nearby, higher percentiles. ... In other words, at least in dollar terms, there is much greater inequality at the very top of the income scale than at the bottom or in the middle. ... when evaluating their own incomes, most families are trying to keep up with the Joneses: they envy the wealthier neighbor whose lifestyle they aim to match. And in dollar terms, the rich are falling far shorter of their respective Joneses than the middle-income and lower-income are. ... It is perhaps no wonder, then, that so many people who are statistically rich call themselves “upper middle” or even “middle class.” They are much, much richer than lots of poor people, but also much, much poorer than some very visibly rich people. From their perspective, they truly are in the middle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well of course. Why would you want to live in a house that someone else lived in? That's gross.

Imagine if your husband said that about your ...... unless you were a virgin bride

I don't say this very often, but you are an idiot. I was joking about a "used" house being gross. Because people kept saying that they wanted a new house.

Anonymous wrote:I find it really sad and depressing reading this post. I knew that many people in this area have incredible salaries (including many of my friends) but I never realized how much entitlement and total and complete lack of perspective there is in this area (if this is any sort of representative sample). It's sad to see what comes on in an anonymous setting.

I don't say this to be holier-than-thou or melodramatic or to stir the pot. I'd probably just as quickly loose perspective if we fell into jobs of that type as well.

Anonymous wrote:I find it really sad and depressing reading this post. I knew that many people in this area have incredible salaries (including many of my friends) but I never realized how much entitlement and total and complete lack of perspective there is in this area (if this is any sort of representative sample). It's sad to see what comes on in an anonymous setting.

I don't say this to be holier-than-thou or melodramatic or to stir the pot. I'd probably just as quickly loose perspective if we fell into jobs of that type as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it really sad and depressing reading this post. I knew that many people in this area have incredible salaries (including many of my friends) but I never realized how much entitlement and total and complete lack of perspective there is in this area (if this is any sort of representative sample). It's sad to see what comes on in an anonymous setting.

I don't say this to be holier-than-thou or melodramatic or to stir the pot. I'd probably just as quickly loose perspective if we fell into jobs of that type as well.

maybe if you got a degree in a field that actually was usefull you would experience the same perspective. be part of the 1% dont be part of the retard 99

Anonymous wrote:
maybe if you got a degree in a field that actually was usefull you would experience the same perspective. be part of the 1% dont be part of the retard 99

Anonymous wrote:"Teachers, nurses, firemen, nannies, biologists, editors, reporters, web designers, librarians, daycare workers, social workers even garbage collectors are all useful to society."

society rewards different montary amount to an individual based on his or her skillset and usefullness to the society

Anonymous wrote:"Teachers, nurses, firemen, nannies, biologists, editors, reporters, web designers, librarians, daycare workers, social workers even garbage collectors are all useful to society."

society rewards different montary amount to an individual based on his or her skillset and usefullness to the society

Anonymous wrote:"Teachers, nurses, firemen, nannies, biologists, editors, reporters, web designers, librarians, daycare workers, social workers even garbage collectors are all useful to society."

society rewards different montary amount to an individual based on his or her skillset and usefullness to the society

Anonymous wrote:"Teachers, nurses, firemen, nannies, biologists, editors, reporters, web designers, librarians, daycare workers, social workers even garbage collectors are all useful to society."

society rewards different montary amount to an individual based on his or her skillset and usefullness to the society

Anonymous wrote:Not really. Take, for example, football and movie stars. Those people aren't particularly useful. They may be talented actors and often are nice to look at, but they aren't very useful other than to give people something to do during their spare time. But because football and movies can make a lot of money, and the stars are in the position to command some portion of it, they are rewarded.

What about executives of big companies? Sometimes they people are rewarded for being useful, meaning selling more product and increasing shareholder value, but sometimes they aren't. Take the CEO of HP, who was kicked out after only a couple of years of dismal performance, but still got multi-millions of dollars severance.

What about people who actually run the world? The President gets $400K, Congressmen and Senators get $174,000.

Most jobs' pay reflects what the market will bear, which is usually correlated with the true "value" of the job (however measured) only incidentally, if at all.