Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Should the poverty line be $100,000 a year? $140K? Odell Beckham describes his own struggles to live on $20 million . . .



Photo above - Odell Beckham Jr poses with his Rolls Royce and other cars in his $9 million collection, while explaining why it's impossible to live on $20 million a year ("That's only $12 million after taxes")

I was caught off guard earlier this year when clickbait articles appeared, claiming an income less than $100,000 a year was “poverty”. (Mine is below that). I had always assumed that somewhere between minimum wage ($15-ish) and $30 was poverty. $100,000? That would mean every teacher and police officer in America is below the poverty line. So this claim is complete BS.

Then Investopedia (link below) saw that ante, and raised the bet to $140K. WTH!! That’s $70 an hour. All the Baristas who are on struje at Starbucks will have their heads explode. Okay, we have too many Starbucks in America anyway. If people want to pull themselves out of poverty they should make coffee at home, instead of popping out for a $7.50 (plus tip) Grande every morning. (Disclaimer - actual prices may be higher in LA, NY, etc.)

This is the problem with national poverty lines that cover all 50 states. And national minimum wages. People in high tax/high housing states will always feel poor. And their jobs will keep migrating to the flyover states, where anyone making $70 an hour is a big shot. Or those coastal big city jobs will be replaced by robots, and soon AI. If everyone insists on $140,000 a year, then robots and AI will replace everyone, and there will be nobody left to tax. Don’t say “tax the corporations”. We (consumers) pay those taxes at the cash register, as Donald Trump so ably reminded us this year.

Why is Odell Beckham Jr in the headline at top, though? He has a $100 million, 5 year NFL contract. And he worries if he can make those paychecks last the rest of his life, once he retires for good, or suffers a career ending injury. I imagine that if you live in Los Angeles mansion, the future does look bleak when you realize your highest earning years are behind you.

Don’t tell Odell to save more and spend less. He’s already tried that, just like you and me. It often seems impossible to curtail your clothing purchases, clubbing habits, new additions to your car collection, and of course the Starbucks fix. In Odell’s case we can assume he picks up the Starbucks tab for his entire entourage.

I’m not making fun of Odell. Even if he is a clueless dropout who played for 4 different teams in the past 4 seasons and was recently suspended for violating the league’s PED (performance enhancing drug) rules. Odell DID try to get a college degree from LSU, but he dropped out in 2014 at the NFL’s suggestion to sign with NY Giants. For $2.6 million. Odell has struggled to make ends meet ever since.

In yesterday’s column I covered some smart aleck money manager from Edward Jones, whos advice for everyone is “don’t put your money in an IRA. Just start your own business.” I doubt it even someone as rich as Odell will try that. He’s painfully aware of his own limited business skills. Odell's future may involve Nike and Pfizer TV ads (like Dak Prescott, Travis Kelse, and Russell Wilson). Odell had better figure out how to make THOSE paychecks last, because they’re certainly not going to amount to $20 million a year.

I’m just sayin’ . . .



Is the Real 'Poverty Line' $140,000 a Year?

NFL star Odell Beckham Jr. reveals struggle of living on $100M contract and breaks down how $20M/year goes fast after taxes. Could you make it last?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Honestly at the rate things are going this is actually pretty reasonable. Housing alone has skyrocketed since the 70s and yet purchasing power has been on a decline since that same period.

It is no longer 1980 when 100k made you upper middle class.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow 100k is upper middle class
I dont make a third of that.
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow housing has skyrocketed only because we are building less than 50% of the new homes (nationally) to meet america's annual population growth.

the lack of homebuilding comes from higher mortgage rates (thank you federal reserve), land zoning restrictions, green set asides, and every other regulation that adds to the cost of building a new house.

why should every new home in a particular town be required to have an EV charger on day one? We're still trying to figure what kind of EV plugs will become the standard.
@SusanInFlorida That is not strictly true. A huge part of the housing problem is because it is a commodity. You have corporate investors buying properties and they even brag to their shareholders that they use software to a) determine how far people will pay to have a roof at all and B) deliberately keep homes and apartments vacant to create artificial scarcity to again drive up prices.

And for 50 years CEOs have been pocketing the wages and salaries of their workers.

In a system that incentiivizes profits the actual shortage will not be solved either because in this system luxury housing only 1% of the population can afford is the best ROI. Affordable housing is not economically viable.

And like it or not keeping the US infrastructure stuck in the 1800s forever is not a strategy.

And we also know from examples from other parts of the world companies trying to create monopolies through a "format war" can and only will be solved by legislation.

Part of why any of this is a problem in the US is because Americans insist on leaving it to the "market" to solve everything even if it is objectively the worst option for no other reason than ideology.