4 ms·

All of those are substantive arguments. I was objecting to the use of the term "peanuts", which is derisive and dismissive -- as though this salary is not even

All of those are substantive arguments. I was objecting to the use of the term "peanuts", which is derisive and dismissive -- as though this salary is not even worthy of consideration. Only 6.5% of US workers make 100K or more, according to this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%24100K+income http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%24100K+income It's either just colourful language, or indicates that the writer is out of touch with reality.

mmt 16y ago
That didn't even occur to me, that you'd find the term problematic. I just interpreted as colorful language. I find the denominator of the entire US[1] to be somewhat misleading, as I said. More importantly, however, I found the emphasis to be on the working for someone else, not the magnitude of the salary. Perhaps even more importantly, the high annual salary may translate to a low hourly rate, especially with a long commute and on-call duty. For some, this may be such a substantial reduction in quality of life, that the salary is low enough to resemble a legume. [1]Do all US workers in the above denominator include self-employed contractors?