Posted on 05/29/2005 5:46:04 PM PDT by bitt
If they are so much smarter than the rest of us, how come they don't make much money?
I think a better way to describe the class above middle class/upper middle class, is "affluent". Affluent people have a very good cash flow but do not have the inherited wealth that is typical of the Upper Class. A typical affluent person would be one who is the first in their family to attend college/get a great job and make a very good salary, but still need to work to maintain affluence.
Maybe it is my age, but a doctor was the epitome of the middle class when I was a boy.
Upper middle class, but middle class.
Again, I think it is best to think of all of theis in income grouping, perhaps matched with tax brackets.
This class categorization is a lot like age -- 'old' is 20 years older than you are. 'Upper class' is 50K/year more than you make, or something like that.
I think $75K is "lower-upper-middle." 85K is "middle-upper-middle." Of course. 100K is the dreaded "upper-upper-middle" because that is the income which the Left has decided is evil.
No sweat for the Dems: All they need to do is lower everyone's income. They've undoubtedly already figured it out.
Spelling of "Chiraqed" is intentional.
Who ever tought you that? The US has classes like other countries. What differentiates us is that there is greater mobility between classes. Work hard and with a little luck you advance. Squander your opportunties or have incredibly bad luck and you can fall into the next lower class.
I br to differ. The Dem cool-aid drinkers are still sipping from FDR's and LBJ's swill. Karen and I have told our children (26 and 24) they're toast. They'd better save as much as they can in their 401k's and eat dog-food for the next ten years using the only private savings plan that makes any sense... I could rant on, but there's no point.
According to the authors, a high percentage of the flashy types, many with high incomes, do not know how to manage their money and as a result often end up having little to show for all their years of high earnings. They look "rich", but often do not have the accumulated wealth of the non-flashy real millionaires who have built their wealth by not wasting it on expensive homes, cars, clothes, jewelry, etc.
The real millionaires also invest and plan very well. And many have yearly incomes that are under one hundred thousand dollars. But they know what to do with what they have.
"Pretty quick you start to see that $86,000 is most definitely outside the middle class."
In NY and SF, 86k a year gets you a 1 bedroom apartment that you have to share with someone. In Iowa, 86k gets you a 4 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath, 2 car garage home with 3/4 acres of land and property taxes of 1200 a year.
I live in central NJ. My mortgage is 1/2 ofthe 86k a year. Which doesn't include property taxes over 13k a year to boot.
That's the difference.
23k a year in NYC is poverty.
Not much argument from me.
In November 2003 the medium annual income for all occupations for the State of New York, covering something more than 8 million workers, was approximately $33,000. The mean annual income for the same category was only about $42,000. Even if you double the income to approximate a two person family income, you still fall way short of your $86,000 a year NYC 1 bedroom apartment dweller.
I don't think the extreme deviations cause anyone to toss out the statistical picture. The bottom line is, even in New York, an $86,000 annual medium income is on the high end of personal income for New Yorkers and the United States. And, I don't think we'll ever find a large, representative group which will precisely mirror any statistical image.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.