Two rec list diaries on DK today were about how the Wall Street Journal panders to the rich. The first diary was about how hard it is to live on "only" $400,000 per year. The second diary was how the WSJ would never stoop to writing a story on how the vast majority of families in the United States survive on only 10% of that amount. CNN reports that the median family income actually fell in 2013 from 2012. The median family income in 2013 is only $51,017.
I actually read the story a few days ago about the problem of living on only $400,000 and dismissed it as typical Wall Street Journal reporting. At my job I have access to "complementary" copies of the WSJ and skim through it on a regular basis.
The most incredible story I remember reading from a few months ago was so over the top that I went around my workplace sharing the story with my co-workers. The article in the Wall Street Journal was from January 31, 2014 and entitled "Retiring on your own terms"
This is the line that got me and my co-workers worked up. But before I give you the line, let me explain that the very next line is what really pissed off my co-workers.
Line one "For instance, if you want $100,000 in annual income"
Line two - the MINDBLOWER - (not counting Social Security)
So the WSJ thinks that $100,000 isn't enough to retire on. The rich need a welfare program on top of the $100,000 per year retirement so they take from the government another $28,000 so their "lifestyle" can remain where it was. The top Social Security benefit for 2013 is a little over $2400 per month, that works out to over $28,000 per year. Social Security is what most folks live on once they retire. And most retirees do not receive the maximum benefit.
WSJ can KMA.