Rhetorical Analysis: “$350,000 a Year, and Just Getting By”

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

In her article titled “$350,000 a Year, and Just Getting By,” Annie Lowry discusses how financial confessions illustrate physiological perceptions of income and spending in the USA. The author reflects on how some such statements go viral and why the country’s upper class may genuinely feel cash-stripped. Lowry’s claim that the explanation is the insulation of richness and resulting lack of awareness is fairly convincing and supplemented with effective use of ethos and logos as well as occasional pathos.

Before evaluating the argument itself, it is necessary to consider the rhetorical situation behind it. Lowry sets the discussion against the backdrop of financial confessions on the Internet that are divisive enough to deserve being called viral. The author provides examples, such as the law professor from Chicago, with a combined household income exceeding $250,000 and stating he has “less than a few hundred dollars per month of discretionary income” (Lowry). Another example is the budget of a couple making $500,000 a year and still only having $7,300 to spend at their discretion per the same period (“Scraping By”). The comments below these publications suggest that people, especially those who earn less, tend to feel anger and resentment at such statements. Thus, Lowry most likely directs her article at the average-income earners who, as have-nots, feel indignation at the haves’ financial confessions.

One notable part of Lowry’s argument is her use of logos – that is, the appeals to reason and logic. As mentioned above, she uses evidence to illustrate her statements, but this is to be expected in professional journalism. The essence of her argument is also highly logical in the appeals it uses. The author’s claim is that “the country’s [richest] 10 percent… really don’t understand how much better they have it than the 90 percent below them,” and she uses evidence and logic to explain it (Lowry). According to her, people tend to live around those with the same level of income, which leads them to perceive this level as normal (Lowry). This, in turn, leads to the insulation of richness and poverty, causing the rich to think their income and spending is normal when it may be an order of magnitude above average. Essentially, Lowry’s claim is a syllogism: people living around those with the same level of income will perceive it as normal, rich people live around rich people, therefore, they are genuinely not conscious about how much better off they are than the general population.

Another part of Lowry’s argument is her appeals to ethos or the attempts to build credibility in the audience’s eyes. First of all, she quotes the sources with the credentials that should make them more convincing for the readers. For example, when referring to Sam Dogan, the founder of the Financial Samurai website, she points out that he “semiretired at 34 with $3 million in the bank” to give his explanations of the situation more weight (Lowry). Secondly – and, likely, most importantly – is the author’s appeal to shared values. In the last paragraph, she notes that a household “spending and saving conscientiously” is unlikely to produce a viral financial confession (Lowry). This statement implies that the upper-class representatives complaining about being cash-strapped do not approach their budgets conscientiously, hinting at the shared values of thrift and reasonable spending. This evaluation aligns the author with the majority of the average-income earners who are likely to read her text.

Lowry’s use of pathos is not nearly as prominent and notable as the two other rhetoric strategies discussed above, but there are still some appeals to the readers’ emotions. Given that the article’s audience is the people with average income, the author adds some occasional jabs at the frivolous spending of high-income earners. After mentioning the $350,000 yearly budget for a couple that was supposedly “struggling,” she immediately mentions a New York Representative sarcastically suggesting that the family in question is struggling with math (Lowry). This remark plays on the audience’s indignation at the wealthy people having the gall to complain about their budget and, by doing so, makes the readers more emotionally invested in the text. In a similar vein, the second to last paragraph refers to this budget that includes “three – three!” vacations per year (Lowry). The repetition and exclamation mark emphasize the author’s emotional disbelief at how far the high-income earners are from the reality of most American families. This reaction is also intended to resonate with the audience’s feelings and reinforce the readers’ willingness to agree with the text.

To summarize, the author makes fairly effective use of logos and ethos in her argument with a small dose of pathos to attract the audience better. Set against the backdrop of sufficient examples, she states that richer Americans feel cash-strapped because of their insulation from the poorer ones. Her central claim is a simple yet convincing syllogism, and her appeals to authority and shared values serve to improve her credibility in the intended audience’s eyes. As for the occasional appeals to emotions, they serve to keep the audience engaged by playing on its presumed indignation at the high-income earners perceptions of their budgets.