i didn’t look at charts and graphs in school. You think i’ gonna do it for fun? :)
My wife is middle class. I’m redneck with a middle class wife.
The Greater Depression has clearly shown that those of us with the trappings of a middle-class lifestyle are much closer to poverty than we may believe. As for what everyone thinks, I believe young people have far fewer misconceptions as many of them scrape a crappy existence out of the McJobs available to them.
Here in NJ the only stable “middle class” is the government workforce protected by unions/tenure; they also seem to be the only Americans breeding or buying homes.
In my town, Bullhead City, AZ a 45K job is considered a middle class job.
What’s wrong with that? Middle-class is also a mindset: going to work on time, paying your bills on time and living a conservative lifestyle. Rich or poor, it is middle-class values that sustain a nation.
Middle Class should be based on what you spend, not what comes in.
One advantage of being ‘Middle Class’ is that one often has friends who are rich and poor. As I see it, most of the rich aren’t any happier than I am. Some of them worked hard, some got lucky. And most poor people I know don’t work any less hard. Sure there are a few bums but most of them just got a bad draw of the cards and never learned the skill set to move up, or never developed the self confidence that my parents equipped me with.
The rich aren’t any happier, the poor aren’t any more noble, 80 percent of what *I* have seen is due to luck and being born to parents who inculcate a work ethic and/or provide a bit of resources for a running start.
My point is that representative government requires a middle class to work well; we don’t envy the rich or idealize the poor, we know we could probably be either if we were either lucky/unlucky or driven/lazy.
If you were fortunate to be born into a landed family, however little land they owned, you were considered upperclass. If you were born into an unlanded family, but managed through diligence and savvy to amass some savings and investments in business then you were considered middleclass. If you were born poor and stayed poor you were lowerclass.
It wasn't just about purchasing power. It wasn't about whether you were your own boss or not. If your money came from land then you backed policies and legislation that favored the landed. If your money came from business they you backed policies and legislation that favored business. If you were poor you just struggled to get by. Your only opportunity to 'vote' were during food riots.
Today middleclass seems to mean people who are generally required by circumstances to lead mostly morally upright lives in order to get by.
The rich can get drunk, drugged up, and riddle with STD's and they'll be OK after a spin through a rehab clinic or two.
The poor have nothing to lose. They'll have to get wasted on cheap booze and low quality drugs, but that'll just keep them down where they already are.
The middleclass have to have good work habits, stay away from too much booze, drugs, and STDs or else they'll end up poor.
To my mind there is no such thing as the working poor. The working poor, if they are getting by, are the middleclass. They are among those holding up the moral values of the nation by going to work, saving, and staying off the police blotter.
Middleclass no longer means entrepreneurial shopkeeper or investor; someone who is denied entry into the upperclass merely because of his genealogy.
Middleclass, at least in the US, means adherents to the Judeo-Christian moral code either because it is truly believed to be the right code, or for fear of falling into the abyss of poverty.
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.
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.
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... :)
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.