Honestly, today, with a family, house, car, etc… 100k isn’t as much as it sounds.
Comment on The salaries of Wikimedia executives are sparking an online debate about tech sector wages
penquin@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Those are very reasonable salaries to me. What’s insane and should never exist is those who make $200 million a year. Like who needs this much money? What are you gonna do with all of it? Does it even matter how much money you have after a certain amount? I think at a certain point it becomes some kind of disorder or a mental illness to pursue more and more money. Give me $100k a year and I’ll be a happy, very happy camper.
SeeJayEmm@lemmy.procrastinati.org 9 months ago
zaph@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Dog I make less than 40k, it’s exactly what it sounds like.
xpinchx@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I don’t make 100k, but me and my fiance make about 140k combined and that gets us a 1BR apartment in North Chicago and we share a car. We live better than when we each made about $40k but six figures isn’t what it used to be.
Zikeji@programming.dev 9 months ago
Been sinking on that for a couple of years. It is suffering. Start a new job in January and should be doing much better. Best of luck with your endeavors!
SeeJayEmm@lemmy.procrastinati.org 9 months ago
I get that, my wife works in education and make minimum wage. People are underpaid and that sucks. Doesn’t change the fact that inflation sucks too.
I remember when 40k was a decent living wage and it wasn’t that long ago. 100k ain’t CEO money tho. It’s can’t afford a house and living check to check when you have more than 2 kids money. Hell, probably is with only 2 kids. Forget about a college fund.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 9 months ago
$100k
Havs you done any math on this for where you live?
How about Dallas? Atlanta? Philly? Baltimore?
OK, let’s pull the big ones: DC? Anecdote: was once offered a job inside the beltway for a little over $100k. Fuck no. $100k in DC is nothing.
How about San José? LA? San Fran? NY? Again, more places where $100k ain’t much.
Single metrics don’t tell us much.
penquin@lemm.ee 9 months ago
I agree with you 100% $100k in some states like NY or California don’t mean shit, but where I live, I’d live a very comfortable life if I made $100k.
prole@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
$100k used to be a number to aspire to, growing up in the 90s and early 00s. But, nowadays (depending on location), $100k is not as much as you think. Especially if you’re trying to support a family on it.
penquin@lemm.ee 9 months ago
True, I should have been more clear that I’m talking about where I live currently. $100k would definitely put me in a very comfortable spot in life, but I get what you mean :)
lobut@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
All that extra money seems to be a detriment. People seem to be less empathetic and just use that money to get more money.
GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 9 months ago
Reminds me of what Warren Zevon had to say about rich people problems, off Preludes. It came out a few years after his death, and the back half of the album has snippets from some radio interview(s?) he did. Neat musings by a complex dude: he was creative genius in a lot of ways, and a titanic asshole in a lot of other ways (he asked his ex-wife to write his biography, and to not go easy on him - alcoholism, violence, absentee parenting…it’s all there).
Anyway, that’s a preface for the folks who don’t know about him: he probably could have been a bigger financial success had he not been a disaster of a human, but maybe his dirty life and times gave him enough material to feed his creativity…who knows.
WZ: I was real lucky, because I always had some kind of work that came along - at the last minute, anyway. I was always able to make some kind of living as a musician I also never really got rich, and that might have been lucky too, ya know?
Interviewer: in what way?
WZ: Well, because the less time you spend with the issues of being rich they’re like the issues of being famous they’re not real issues so they’re not real life.
Interviewer: And it leaves more time to be creative?
WZ: There’s more of an exchange - a human exchange of ideas and feelings to be had on the bus stop than over the phone with your accountant, and if you’re rich you spend a lot of time on the phone with your accountant. it’s necessary, I believe. I know I’m happy and that means I must be lucky. That I know.
lobut@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
I’ve not heard of Warren Zevon of maybe I have and not yet known it. However, that was a great recount of that interview and I’m happy to have read it.
GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 9 months ago
I appreciate you taking the time to say that! Thank you. My favorite song by him is probably Desperados Under the Eaves, if you’d ever like to hear the best of his music.
penquin@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Yup, it’s like it washes off their souls out of their bodies. I wouldn’t wanna be in that spot to be honest.
blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 9 months ago
100k would ruin me!
Move?
No!
ares35@kbin.social 9 months ago
yup. wikipedia's salaries aren't 'too low'--the others (mostly-publicly traded or dreaming-of-an-ipo) pay their top executives way too fucking much.
stevehobbes@lemmy.world 9 months ago
They are probably still a little low - but there’s a giant gap between $400k and $200M.
If you believe that a lot more lower level people should make $150-200k, their manager should probably make more, and their manager should probably make more, and their manager should probably make more, and the CEO should probably make more.
Money that isn’t paid to employees is paid to shareholders or squandered on stupid stuff.
Their CEOs should make more, and their regular employees should make more.
Phlogiston@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Wait. Baked into your thoughts here is an idea that each middle manager up the chain deserves “more” and that isn’t substantiated.
Managing a bunch of people may/mayn’t be harder than doing a difficult job w/ customers or manual labor or whatever. In some cases it’s a relatively kooshy desk job compared to “being in the trenches”.
Yes, sometimes decisions at higher levels has more ramifications. This is why we want good talent in those roles. But it’s a cultural choice that we decide to pay them 100s of times more.
stevehobbes@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I did not say they should get paid 100s of times more. In fact I said the opposite.
But it’s not a leap to imagine someone who manages people has an outsized impact (on average) on the performance of the business relative to the people they manage. They set direction and goals - and while it isn’t more important than the individuals doing the work to achieve the goals, on average it has a larger impact.
Cushy office job or not, managing people is a shit ton of work, work you don’t have as an IC. It’s work that is often done after you do your day job. There are shitty managers just like there are shitty ICs, but if you’re talking in generalities, the percentages are probably similar.
HubertManne@kbin.social 9 months ago
Its pretty easy to explain. You see 400k is where us taxes for a couple is paying the highest rate. It never goes higher no matter how much more you get paid. Those are the people we tax. at 4mil you have your income go into your one man llc and shuffled through various trusts and bussnesses in a varitey of countries so that you pay less tax than someond making 5 figures.
stevehobbes@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The max bracket starts at $693k for married couples filing jointly. The vast majority of couples making $1M-10M are not running that that income through an LLC and shuffling into trusts and businesses. That definitely happens - not with ordinary income, which is what those tax brackets are for. It predominantly happens with people putting assets in trusts (i.e. stock). There are ways to play games with ordinary income, but it’s much, much harder.