$120,000 a year is NOT a modest amount

[carbon dioxide]

12 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

So you're saying you'd happily take a job for which you are on call 24/7 for the rest of your life, for far less than $120,000 a year, right?

I don't do anything of anywhere near the importance of what the apostles do, but even my time is more valuable than that.  I wonder what you do for a living that you would place such a low value on your skills.

By the way, what does putting kids through college or the number of kids one has, have to do with compensation?  Is that how your employer determines wages?  By how many kids you have?  If so, they've got to be the only such employer on the planet.  And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be legal.

 

This is an excellent point.  How many people would take a job for 120K a year based on the fact they will be in their job for the rest of their life?  Generally people want to make a lot of money when they are young so they can retire and do all the things they want to do before they die without working.  I suspect that the vast majority of people would not take such a job knowing their is no "golden" years for them.  They will be working when they are 85.  I only make half of what they do and if one was to offer me a contract that pays me double but I have no expectation of ever retiring, I reject it without much thought.  I rather take half the pay and freedom I will get when I am 65.  I am sure most of these men would rather spend more time with their grandchildren in these years than doing their calling every day.  To the people in this age bracket there is some things even a million dollars can't buy. 

Edited February 3, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Okrahomer]

For what it's worth, here are some interesting facts about the 46 US Bishops of the United Methodist Church in 2015:

1.   2015 compensation = $145,665 per Bishop.

2.  "U.S. bishops’ compensation was on average 4 percent lower than that of large church senior pastors."  (Which means that senior pastors at large US Methodist churches were making around $151,000+ in 2015.)

3.  US membership in the United Methodist Church in 2015 was right at 7 million.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I thought personal attacks weren't allowed on this board.

What, from what I wrote, was a personal attack? 

Not coming from you!

  

Seriously --- all you do here is complain about the Church. It might help grease the skids a little with your anti-Church postings if you were genuinely positive, sometimes. You know --- once in a while. So that when you say that you love some things about your Mormon experience, it might just come across as sincere, and not an obligatory opening to ragging on the Church.

1) I said that all O. does is "complain about . . . [or] rag on the Church."  I don't think there's any argument about that, is there?

2) I then suggested that, since O.'s opening posts, where O. portrayed O.-self as someone who loves the Church, but just doesn't like O.'s bishop and, well, all of the other Church leaders, O. might sometimes talk about some of the things that O. supposedly does like about the Church. Is that a personal attack? Granted, there might not actually be anything positive O. can say, and that's fine.

3) I did later describe O. as a "flame-throwing troll." That might sound mean, but both are established online discussion descriptions. Is this an inaccurate description?

[rodheadlee]

39 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Modest is relative to where one lives.  120K is a lot of money living in Wyoming.  It would just get some  people by in Silicon Valley or New York City.  Living in Salt Lake City it would constitute a good middle class income.  They can have a nice house but not too big and no Ferrari in the garage.

I heard in Palo Alto,CA they were going to give housing assistance to anyone making under 250k a year.