5 ms·

70-300k is a crazy wide range to lump together. Quality of life and flexibility to pay for things is extremely different across it. That said, the reason is si

70-300k is a crazy wide range to lump together. Quality of life and flexibility to pay for things is extremely different across it. That said, the reason is simple, there’s no good product out there so people pirate. I haven’t pirated music in ages because Spotify solved that industry with a single reasonably priced offering. On the other hand the dozens of streaming services have gotten out of hand by now. Same with renting movies, I’d rather enjoy in the cinema or torrent it, especially given how mediocre 95% of production has been in recent years.

ralusek 3y ago
> especially given how mediocre 95% of production has been in recent years Okay, then don’t watch it. If you’re watching it, though, you should pay for it. Your logic is the equivalent of going out to restaurants to eat, and then not paying because “restaurants aren’t good these days.”
- someotherperson 3y ago
  It's probably closer to having to pay a monthly subscription fee to eat at the restaurant. And you actually have to get six different subscriptions at different restaurants because each one has a different rotating menu. And you're not allowed to share your food with your friends because they don't live with you -- they each need their own subscription. And no to-go boxes, you gotta eat it right there at the restaurant since you're only allowed to eat the food while you have an active subscription, you know, just in case you cancel the subscription to that restaurant or try to share the food with your friends who don't have an active subscription.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    Also, you can't figure out what to eat because instead of being indexed by nutrition information or by whether it contains potential allergens it's always indexed at the top level by subscription so you have to do a little inner join there on your napkin before you can tell your kid what their options are.
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    The analogy doesn't hold because piracy in that scenario would be going to one of those subscription-based restaurants and getting their food but not paying. We go back full circle to the comment you were replying to. You could argue piracy is going to the chef's place and eating their food before it gets to the restaurant for distribution, now the chef is angry too. Not a good analogy.
swozey 3y ago
Most of us who make 100k-300k made 70k at one point. I made 70k (5-8 years?) a lot longer than I've made 235k. I was absolutely not broke at 70k. In fact I thought that was the most money I'd ever make and that I was killing it for 25 or whatever I was.. lmao I made quite a bit more money than everyone my age I knew, most were still in college or in the 35-50k brackets.
- jjulius 3y ago
  >I was absolutely not broke at 70k. I'm genuinely glad that you weren't. Your experience is not everyone else's. I know people who have made around that salary who, for various reasons, were essentially broke. Much of the rest of your comment just sounds... braggadocious.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    If you're broke at 70k you are simply bad with your finances. There are no excuses, unless you have a super rare medical condition. You can't blame anybody but yourself.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      An absolute that has been shown to be untrue for a litany of reasons time and again, but OK. For many people, yes, you're right, but I would wager you'd be surprised at the number of people trying to claw themselves out of varying circumstances while making that much. And this isn't a judgement towards those in those situations, it's empathy from my end - I feel the need to clarify after another user's flippant comments elsewhere in this thread.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        Not wanting to argue, just want to say my point of view: Excepting for rare medical conditions, we all as humans have the same needs and "cost" of existing and living our lives. And therefore I don't think it can be very dependant on circumstances or subjective as to what is "making ends meet". I can't really emphasise with people who are wealthy or high income (which 70k is), who say they are struggling with monetary matters. They've made some choices and prioritizations. People who own multiple properties say that they "can't afford" some basic consumer good, or indignant that they have to work a lot of overtime to make ends meet. Yes, you chose a high cost life style. I try to set aside a disproportionately large part of my income for high risk investments. Everybody I know says they can not afford to make any investments, and especially not risky investments. How can they not afford it when they are wealthier than me and have larger incomes than me? Because they prioritised something else. And that's cool, but why can't people cut the bullshit. And I don't ask others about their finances or bring up the topic. So I'm going to double down and say that there are exactly 0 cases – outside of rare medical disorders – where somebody has to struggle to live on 70K.

ralusek 3y ago

> especially given how mediocre 95% of production has been in recent years Okay, then don’t watch it. If you’re watching it, though, you should pay for it. Your logic is the equivalent of going out to restaurants to eat, and then not paying because “restaurants aren’t good these days.”

someotherperson 3y ago
It's probably closer to having to pay a monthly subscription fee to eat at the restaurant. And you actually have to get six different subscriptions at different restaurants because each one has a different rotating menu. And you're not allowed to share your food with your friends because they don't live with you -- they each need their own subscription. And no to-go boxes, you gotta eat it right there at the restaurant since you're only allowed to eat the food while you have an active subscription, you know, just in case you cancel the subscription to that restaurant or try to share the food with your friends who don't have an active subscription.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Also, you can't figure out what to eat because instead of being indexed by nutrition information or by whether it contains potential allergens it's always indexed at the top level by subscription so you have to do a little inner join there on your napkin before you can tell your kid what their options are.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  The analogy doesn't hold because piracy in that scenario would be going to one of those subscription-based restaurants and getting their food but not paying. We go back full circle to the comment you were replying to. You could argue piracy is going to the chef's place and eating their food before it gets to the restaurant for distribution, now the chef is angry too. Not a good analogy.

swozey 3y ago

Most of us who make 100k-300k made 70k at one point. I made 70k (5-8 years?) a lot longer than I've made 235k. I was absolutely not broke at 70k. In fact I thought that was the most money I'd ever make and that I was killing it for 25 or whatever I was.. lmao I made quite a bit more money than everyone my age I knew, most were still in college or in the 35-50k brackets.

jjulius 3y ago
>I was absolutely not broke at 70k. I'm genuinely glad that you weren't. Your experience is not everyone else's. I know people who have made around that salary who, for various reasons, were essentially broke. Much of the rest of your comment just sounds... braggadocious.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  If you're broke at 70k you are simply bad with your finances. There are no excuses, unless you have a super rare medical condition. You can't blame anybody but yourself.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    An absolute that has been shown to be untrue for a litany of reasons time and again, but OK. For many people, yes, you're right, but I would wager you'd be surprised at the number of people trying to claw themselves out of varying circumstances while making that much. And this isn't a judgement towards those in those situations, it's empathy from my end - I feel the need to clarify after another user's flippant comments elsewhere in this thread.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Not wanting to argue, just want to say my point of view: Excepting for rare medical conditions, we all as humans have the same needs and "cost" of existing and living our lives. And therefore I don't think it can be very dependant on circumstances or subjective as to what is "making ends meet". I can't really emphasise with people who are wealthy or high income (which 70k is), who say they are struggling with monetary matters. They've made some choices and prioritizations. People who own multiple properties say that they "can't afford" some basic consumer good, or indignant that they have to work a lot of overtime to make ends meet. Yes, you chose a high cost life style. I try to set aside a disproportionately large part of my income for high risk investments. Everybody I know says they can not afford to make any investments, and especially not risky investments. How can they not afford it when they are wealthier than me and have larger incomes than me? Because they prioritised something else. And that's cool, but why can't people cut the bullshit. And I don't ask others about their finances or bring up the topic. So I'm going to double down and say that there are exactly 0 cases – outside of rare medical disorders – where somebody has to struggle to live on 70K.