Something I don't understand

Let's say you're in your 40s or early 50s, living in Silicon Valley, and by some combination of smarts, extremely hard work, and good timing, you're worth three, four, maybe ten million dollars. You feel fortunate, but there are some things you can't do: you can't own 100% of a major-league sports team; you can't endow a building at Stanford; you can't buy a private 747. The guy up the street has a much bigger house. You have some kids and you're looking at having to pay whopping private school tuitions for a bunch of years for each of them, followed by four years' full tuition at a good university, and maybe a couple more years of graduate school. There's no telling how high inflation will be or how expensive state-of-the-art health care and assisted living will get.

So, somewhat surprised, you find yourself antsy and insecure.

O.K, I can maybe--maybe--just barely sort of understand that.

But what would possess you to complain about your finances to the New York Times? I've racked my brain and I can only come up with three explanations.

1. If you come from big, old money--ten or twenty generations' worth--you just might lose sight of how average, middle-class people live. But while I don't know for sure, I assume that the great majority of cuurent Silicon Valley multi-millionaires don't fit that description.

2. While you would literally die of shame and embarrassment if you thought a factory worker in Detroit or a schoolteacher in Mississippi were going to read your tale of alleged woe, you recognize that the audience for the Times these days is largely Upper East Side I-bankers who, over their Sunday double cappuccinos, nod their heads and think, "Well sure, if I was worth only a couple million, I'd be damn worried, too. Poor bastards."

3. You secretly applaud the Times's new thesis, a thesis it is advancing with great zeal: rich people aren't happy, so it would be O.K. if the government taxed the hell out of them. (See, for another instance, this ecstatic review of a new book by Robert Frank.) So you're trying to help by providing an instructive example.

I can't say that I find any of these explanations satisfactory.

Comments

[Kevin Brancato]

4. You honestly believe that you are financially insecure -- and you ARE financially insecure, since you absolutely refuse to cash out your 50% equity stake in your three-million-dollar house and move to a community with a far lower cost of living, because that would be "admitting defeat".

You talk to The New York Times to show everyone that you shall overcome.

[Brent Buckner]

5. You're insecure, and the attention of the NYT seems validating.
6. You're implicitly bragging under the cover of claiming insecurity.
7. Out of a fairly large group, you're one of a few who has lost perspective relatively quickly, and the NYT managed to find you.

[Jake]

Silly people talking to a silly reporter from a silly newspaper.

[david foster]

Well, let's ask some experts.

Leonard Cohen:

I saw a beggar leaning on a broken crutch
He said to me 'you must not ask for so much'
And a pretty woman leaning in her darkened door
She said to me 'hey, why not ask for more?'

Bruce Springsteen:

Poor man wanna be rich
Rich man wanna be king
King ain't satisfied till he owns everything

[JorgXMcKie]

Poverty has always been comparative. "How are you doing?" "Compared to what/who?" I would estimate that not all that many people (there's a highly refined statistic) have the sort of internal value set that allows them to compare themselves to an internal standard.

My sister, who is just above the poverty line, is one of the happiest and most content people I know. As she says, "I've got lots of good friends, loving relatives, a good roof over my head, and I eat like a queen because I cook for myself. My health is good. What more could I reasonably ask for?" (Of course, her well-grounded religious beliefs probably don't hurt, either.)

The nasty combination of envy and loathing exhibited by such as Krugman would appear to be corrosive to the soul. (Assuming one hasn't already sold it, of course.)

I was asked just recently about how I felt by my improved (over the past 10 years or so) financial status. I replied honestly, that, "I was perhaps never more content that when my wife and I were poor grad students (from 1990-1999). We were at or below the poverty line and once had huge medical debts (since paid off in full), but we had friends and work and study and relatives and I had good health (and her health problems were manageable) and we were doing what we liked. And we had each other. I don't see how I could have been more content. On the other hand, we are also both now working at jobs we like that pay reasonably well, and we have money for retirement and to help family members (as we were helped in our turn) and to give charitably and for a night out once a week and for all the books we want. We're (speaking, I think, for both of us) no happier nor content than when we were poor, we're just more comfortable."

[JorgXMcKie]

Poverty has always been comparative. "How are you doing?" "Compared to what/who?" I would estimate that not all that many people (there's a highly refined statistic) have the sort of internal value set that allows them to compare themselves to an internal standard.

My sister, who is just above the poverty line, is one of the happiest and most content people I know. As she says, "I've got lots of good friends, loving relatives, a good roof over my head, and I eat like a queen because I cook for myself. My health is good. What more could I reasonably ask for?" (Of course, her well-grounded religious beliefs probably don't hurt, either.)

The nasty combination of envy and loathing exhibited by such as Krugman would appear to be corrosive to the soul. (Assuming one hasn't already sold it, of course.)

I was asked just recently about how I felt by my improved (over the past 10 years or so) financial status. I replied honestly, that, "I was perhaps never more content that when my wife and I were poor grad students (from 1990-1999). We were at or below the poverty line and once had huge medical debts (since paid off in full), but we had friends and work and study and relatives and I had good health (and her health problems were manageable) and we were doing what we liked. And we had each other. I don't see how I could have been more content. On the other hand, we are also both now working at jobs we like that pay reasonably well, and we have money for retirement and to help family members (as we were helped in our turn) and to give charitably and for a night out once a week and for all the books we want. We're (speaking, I think, for both of us) no happier nor content than when we were poor, we're just more comfortable."

[anon]

Spousal pressure surely plays a role in many of these situations. If one partner is financially conservative and the other is extravagant, then the couple's total spending will usually be in the extravagant direction.

In general, social status tends to be VERY important to women, even more so than with men.

[brian g]

What is middle-class? In terms of income? I was a sociology major and never found a satisfactory answer. It seems to be qualitatively the 50/60s era of HS grad can be a single earner and make enough money for the household of 4 to get the kids through HS, asn some amy argue into college or at least assist. not sure what the income would of been.

In 2000 the avg household income was about 40K , I think its now 46K. That's household BTW, not single earner necessarily could be 2,3,4 people bringing int he income.

On CSPAN a NY fire chief was testifying before congress that he and his wife a nurse are middle class and their income is 110K. A caller on CSPAn on the washington journal when asked what they thought middle class income was, she said 60-100K.

I am thrilled at my prospects of employment with a masters, debt, and an income potential of high 30s to start. At least I am clear of the AMT for now!

[anonymous]

What's even uglier is class envy. The guy has more than you and he want's to do even better. Get over it.