Posted on 09/26/2016 3:53:11 PM PDT by Lorianne
In 1971 70% of Americans were middle class. A clear majority. Today the middle class is now a minority. It is interesting that within one generation we have pushed the middle class into minority status yet most people still think they are middle class when the data clearly states otherwise.
This misperception is probably at the root of a lot of the political anger this year. If everyone is middle class and you are struggling, surely it is the system to blame. Forget about the cronyism on Wall Street and the deep capture of big money in D.C. – the answer is simple. The politicians are wrong and there is a simply solution to be had. There is no easy solution unfortunately and that is why anger is the currency of the day.
We have a deeply held belief in America that if you work hard enough, anything is achievable. This is something built into the core of our nation. If you go back to the Great Depression, while other countries were overturning systems and shifting deeply held ideology, Americans held steady and went out and voted. But people think they are middle class if they make $22k or $200k. The median household income in the U.S. is $56,000. That is the middle. Let us look at the figures here.
Middle class perceptions
The media has a distorted perception of what the middle class is. There have been politicians saying that $200k is middle class. That is absolutely not the case. And the media also makes it a point to rarely talk about income because they have started to wise up. Many people don’t make that much. Bring that to their attention and they may not buy all the products you are pitching.
(Excerpt) Read more at mybudget360.com ...
If you pay all your basic bills and have enough money left to buy whatever you want whenever you want you are living at or above middle class standards even if your income is rated statistically as lower than middle class.
It is still socially more acceptable in many circles to say you are middle class versus upper class, and few want to say they are lower class.
You can’t define middle class by a specific dollar amount for the whole country. An income that makes someone upper middle class in say Oklahoma is poverty level in the SF Bay Area. I define it as being able to afford to buy a home, send your kids to decent schools, save for retirement, etc. That’s vastly more money some places than others.
And being grateful for having enough.
The original definition of “middle class” had nothing to do with median income.
If you worked for a paycheck, even if you were paid well, you are working class. You are working class if you have a boss who can give you orders or fire you.
If you OWN your own business, THEN you are middle class.
>>I think part of the reason for this misguided perception is that debt accessibility has given many Americans the trappings of middle class living with the albatross of debt. <<
Debt is a fool’s errand. The only debt anyone should have is a mortgage (I will pay off the mortgage on my second home this December), which should be no more than 30% of your take-home pay.
I believe that is referred to as “the short bus”...
>>Middle Class should be based on what you spend, not what comes in.<<
Neither. It should be based on wealth.
Now I'm lower middle class...
Before Obama, I had 5K in my safe at home for SHTF money.
I had 2K in a saving account for an emergency like a new appliance or serious car repair.
I'm now making 60 % of my former salary after the company closed because of Obamacare...
Thank Goodness, I still have my good looks... :)
>>”Three ex-wives took care of that. “
Hell, two of ‘em could do that.<<
I must be behind the curve. One took care of that for a LONG time.
Thank God I paid her off so now she has no attachment to me or mine.
1. No definition of middle class and what the top and bottom levels for it are now or were back in the 1970s which was used as a reference point.
2. No mention that other studies have said that the middle class is shrinking because there are more who are richer and poorer. Articles like this hint that people are going lower without saying many are moving upward.
3. Comparisons of different times without parallel graphs. If you want to compare income distribution between now and 1970 then show graphs for both.
4. No mention of the effect of two income households have on this. If now both spouses work and compare that to single parents working, I would expect more deviation in income versus 1970 when generally the husband worked in a married family.
A couple interesting points from this chart. First, if all levels of income grow but the highest level of income grows by the largest percentage, then people who statistically fall out of the middle class into the lower class still will be, for all intents and purposes, at a middle class income level and enjoying a middle class life. They will be enjoying a lot less than the wealthy but, in absolute terms, if their real purchasing power income increases, they will be middle class.
Second, the chart below this chart shows that the top 2.7% of earners pay 51% of ALL income taxes. And yet the Dems can still sell the snake oil that if we just increased taxes on the “wealthy”, that all their wonderful social programs would be paid for.
Another point is the one that we conservatives make all the time — income is not static. A couple in their 50s who make $100,000 or $150,000 a year may be “middle class” just as much as a single 23 year old who makes $30,000 per year. The couple in their 50s needs to pay off their mortgage and prepare for retirement. The 23 year old has years of income earning potential ahead of him. So in that sense, they are the same. Plus, the 23 year old may still be getting some level of subsidy from his or her parents.
Second, income is not the same based on each region — $250,000 per year if you are living in Manhattan, after tax, will buy you many of the same things (living space, food, recreation potential) that $100,000 will buy you in a more rural area.
I’m tired of politicians conflating middle class and so-called “working class” (an insulting term for 2-fold reason). Working class is supposed to be the low class.
It’s like they’re trying to appeal to the actual middle class while pandering to the “WC” by making them feel better.
You came closest to my view.
- The rich essentially don’t have to work or they work but don’t play by the rules. The rich inherited money (I’m okay with that but think it’s sad for kids who never produce or contribute, like Chelsea Clinton) and don’t work a productive job, or who get huge government contracts for work that their bought politicians know won’t be done or won’t be worth anywhere near what they were paid (I’m not okay with that).
- The middle class generally work for a living, do an honest job and try to deliver value, and have enough for some discretionary spending. They are the ones who made America great, and that group includes some people who earn a lot of money. Thomas Edison was middle class, even when he was bringing in a high income.
- The poor are the welfare class who cannot work or choose not to and barely get by, and those working for very low pay, where getting by is not a certainty from week to week.
I disagree completely with the premise of the article. Someone making $200k (and I’ve known a lot of those people) can easily be middle class, as can someone making $22k. Implying that anyone below $56k is poor, or that anyone well above $56k is rich is absurd. Middle class is a lifestyle and a way of seeing our role in the world, not a statistical median. The democrat party is based on artificially putting people in the upper or lower class, since those groups vote for more free stuff. The republican party is based on helping as many people as possible into the middle class, since the middle class is the productive people who make America great.
bump
Pretty much this. My wife and I worked hard and saved what we could. We managed to be able to buy a house in a nice area of the SF-SJ Bay Area. We were able to pay our daughter's college expenses. She managed to complete the BA degree in the UC system in three years.
She's been working for almost two years, but she was living with us during that time. She determined living on her own or even with a friend would chew up most if not all of her paycheck. Cost of living in the SF-SJ Bay Area is brutal.
A business trip last year found her in Texas, which she fell in love with. She also made more friends there in a short time than during her entire K-12 years at home (that's another story in itself).
She has since relocated to Texas and is working there, and she has managed to save enough from living at home to buy a house there (probably will happen a couple years from now). That wasn't going to happen if she stayed in the SF-SJ Bay Area.
Unless you’re kidding, some poor choices on your part, lol!
Two Hell! One of ‘em did it to me.
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.