Posted on 02/06/2008 2:51:01 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
To hear the Lou Dobbses and Bill O'Reillys of the world--not to mention politicians ranging from Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton--the middle class of America (however you define that term) has never had it so tough. Between credit squeezes, out-of-control immigration, rising costs of education and health care and everything else, it's all darkness out there for those of us who are neither millionaires nor welfare cases, right?
In "Living Large," Drew Carey and reason.tv examine the plight of the American middle class. What do they find?
http://reason.tv/video/show/61.html
Don’t say I never pinged you.
What do you consider a “decent” income?
Oh I thoroughly disagree w/ Ketsu’s statement that to live a middle class lifestyle in New England requires $100,000 annual income. I know many people who are solidly middle class in southern Maine (where I’m from) who earn quite a bit less.
But your statement “why does being a member of the middle class entitle people to live where they want (in your case, New England)” took that to a whole different level, implying you think it would be okay if the middle class couldn’t afford to live in the entire NE area.
I posted to you to find out if you were using hyperbole or if you are an elitist. Judging from your responses it was unintentional hyperbole, but you seem to have a hard time admitting it. No big thing. I’m also guessing “boy” is part of your screen name for a reason.
I had a great childood in the '60s. Grew up middle class in my parents first brand new house. It did not have a/c, and every home on the block came with a clothesline in the backyard.
I’d be glad to tell you my opinion if you’d specify for whom; a single person, a married couple, a family of 2 kids, a family of 6 kids. And where do they live?
“Decent” doesn’t really apply, you earn what you earn and if you want more you are free to work to earn more.
Sufficient is perhaps the word you mean? And if it is than there is no way to set it because 5 million isn’t sufficient for some (because of their inability to live within their means) and 50,000 is more than sufficient for others.
Personally, I’ve been all over between earning none to a high of $51,000 (as a couple) a couple of years back. I consider us lower middle class and we live in Indiana, by choice because it is cheaper here. I grew up in California and wouldn’t dream of living there now.
Yeah, so? I don't agree that it's all doom and gloom. I certainly don't agree that we are all "wealthy" because a guy has a jet ski on a lake in CA. Why didn't they go to a Goodwill store and interview the people there?
At any time in history there are always some places in the US where people can't afford to live, and others where they can. These regions change over time.
We'd probably be talking much more accurately if we focused on the middle class and not personalities. Words mean things. If we say the "middle class" is the mid quintile of incomes or the mid-quint of wealth, we end up with a middle class that's a lot better of than it was before.
home
home
Okay. I’ll post that wages are rising faster than college tuition, healthcare, gas, and bread and milk. And nobody in the middle class is feeling any pain whatsoever. Feel better?
How exactly is this Breaking News?????
Maybe I’m thick today, but I don’t understand what you’re getting at with your reply.
I found that very interesting, bookmarking to show to the hubby later!
I work 2.5 hours from home, and thus spend most of my week near where I work. Therefore, I have two fitness club memberships - one a family membership where I reside, the other a single membership near where I work. Must mean I’m “rich” (lol).
Ah, credit cards.
http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/credit_cards.htm
Just don't let it happen again. ;-)
“In 1970, only 34% of new homes offered air conditioning. By 1990, it was 76%. In 1970, the average size of a new home was 1,500 sq. ft. By 1990, that had increased to 2,080. In 1970, only 34% of households owned a color TV. By 1990, it was 96%. In 1970, 29% of households owned two or more cars. By 1990, it was 54%. In 1970, the real median household net worth was $24,217. By 1990 it had increased to $48,887. In 1970, Americans owned 8.8 million recreational boats. By 1990, that number had doubled. In 1970, only 52% of Americans finished high school. By 1990, that percentage was up to 78%. In 1970, 13.5% of Americans finished four years of college. By 1990 that was up to 25%. The list goes on.... “
Your post bears repeating. I didn’t have AC until 1982 (my husband bought a window unit when we brought our first baby home from the hospital). My best friend didn’t have an indoor bathroom until 1968. We didn’t have “city” water; bathed in pond water and drank “cistern” water. We didn’t consider ourselves poor.
Folks who are complaining didn’t live through the Carter years (1977 - 1981) when there was double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates. Even people who qualified couldn’t get a home loan. There weren’t just high gas prices, there were gas shortages with long lines of cars hoping to get a partial fill-up. You couldn’t afford more than one car. (By the way, I thought cars then were much better; didn’t dent at the slightest nudge and an average person could repair them, usually rather cheaply). President Carter encouraged everyone to turn their thermostat way down and put on a sweater. I was actually collecting recipes for wild game in fear of the coming anarchy.
These folks need to get some perspective.
Said I’d ignore Red in Blue PA’s posts but his last one is such a perfect example of why this election year is going as it is going that I can’t resist it.
“Okay. I’ll post that wages are rising faster than college tuition, healthcare, gas, and bread and milk. And nobody in the middle class is feeling any pain whatsoever. Feel better?”
As a really dim bimbo I knew of once said in a nasal tone, “Don’t make me thiiiinnnnkkkkk!”
That is most American’s cry nowadays.
You are a very poor judge. But iguanas have a brain smaller than the size of a pea . . . .
Here's the issue you fail to grasp. When responding to someone who is using New England to describe a general geographic area, that we both know contains residents of all income levels, I am under no obligation to refer to New England as anything other than a general geagraphic area with residents of all income levels.
You still don't get it . . . that's the job of Lou Dobbs, et al. And it's faithfully performed every day.
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.