Summary
The article I chose is “You Try To Live on 500K in This Town” by Allen Salkin. The article was a response to a proposal by then-President Barack Obama to limit the salaries of banking executives to $500,000. The conclusion drawn by Salkin is that in New York City, it would be impossible for a banking executive to live on $500,000 while maintaining a high-profile image. Throughout the article, Salkin cites much data about the common expenditures of the New York City elite. It includes the cost of a mortgage, private school tuition, and taxes, amongst many other expenses. It is this information he uses as the premise for his conclusion. Furthermore, in order to address counter-arguments, he claims that all of these expenses are necessary for the banking executives because, without all these symbols of wealth, they would be bad at their jobs. Barry Schwartz, in “The Paradox of Choice,” speaks about freedom and happiness. His conclusion is that individuals in a modern industrial country are overwhelmed by the number of choices they can make, which leads to unhappiness. In order to support his conclusion, he describes several premises. The first is that people tend to regret the choice they make because another one can be better. Second, having numerous choices leads to higher opportunity costs and trade-offs. Third, the increasing number of choices leads to higher and higher expectations. Lastly, Schwartz points to the idea that if the choice that we make is poor, we only have ourselves to blame.
I disagree with the NYT article because I don’t believe someone needs to have a new gown for every gala they attend. I also don’t find it necessary to have a house in Southampton and a driver with a gun. Salkin lists multiple things that he claims are necessary when, in reality, they are not. One can live without two vacations a year. I agree with the mortgage, private school tuition, and nanny, but everything else is extra. One does not need to live such a lavish life to be happy. I find the article completely disrespectful to others living in NYC trying to make ends meet. Some of us living in NYC are living paycheck to paycheck. Some of us are wondering if we will be able to put dinner on our table. I found this article extremely insensitive.
One thought on “Ruth Andrusier Conversation 5”
Hi Ruth,
Thanks for sharing. I agree with how you said not many people will need gowns to attend galas (Basically most people don’t even attend galas, to begin with!) I think the author was trying to show the high-end lifestyle that rich people of New York live by, which is very different from what the majority of New Yorkers experience. People within a certain tax bracket are attending charity events to take the ridiculous amount of money they make and recycle it for those who are in need- Which is why you, I, and most likely our other classmates don’t relate to that lifestyle. The article is interesting though in that even 6 figure incomes leave people struggling- and that worries me. It says a lot about the current state of our economy. I resonate with your frustration and feel that the article was extremely insensitive (and almost offensive) to the lower and middle classes.