- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is considered Middle Class?
Posted on 11/17/18 at 8:40 pm to Hulkklogan
Posted on 11/17/18 at 8:40 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
Finding cheap houses is tough these days unless you're okay with living in a bad part of town or far outside of a city.
Bingo. I couldn't afford anything in the city in a decent neighborhood so we moved 15 miles outside of it.
0
Posted on 11/17/18 at 8:52 pm to volod
quote:Thats for damn sure.
That's one of the main reasons I start threads like this. Middle class of today isnt really middle class pre 1970.
The middle class today has far better living standards. I knew tons of people in the early 70s that didn’t have AC. How many don’t have AC today? My grandparents didn’t even have a phone.
Cars had “standard” transmissions, barely had a radio with one speaker, crank windows, vinyl seats, and many didn’t even have carpet at all. Try to buy a car like that today.
Typical home sizes have almost doubled.
Most families had one TV. Not one in every room. One for the whole house. Cable TV? Nope.
Today people have $1,000 phone they carry on their pocket and b@tch about how poor they are. Even though they will never pay for a “long distance” phone call.
If one lived to the same level a “middle class” family did in the 70’s on a 2018 salary they’d be flush with tons of money.
Posted on 11/17/18 at 9:02 pm to Taxing Authority
The real problem is we measure wealth by “feel”. And there are entire industries and political parties constantly striving to make you feel poorer than you are.
Nothing better than when someone making $100,000 describes themselves as “middle class”. Thst actually a top 10% salary. I get that $100k doesn’t “feel” like being rich. But it is.
At that income you can have just about anything you (within reason) want if you’re careful with your priorities and you don’t buy a bunch of useless landfilll fodder consumer goods.
Buy assets. Not “stuff”. And you can accumulate a tidy wealth for yourself. Especially if you start young.
Nothing better than when someone making $100,000 describes themselves as “middle class”. Thst actually a top 10% salary. I get that $100k doesn’t “feel” like being rich. But it is.
At that income you can have just about anything you (within reason) want if you’re careful with your priorities and you don’t buy a bunch of useless landfilll fodder consumer goods.
Buy assets. Not “stuff”. And you can accumulate a tidy wealth for yourself. Especially if you start young.
This post was edited on 11/17/18 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 11/17/18 at 9:11 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
How many don’t have AC today?
quote:
oday people have $1,000 phone they carry on their pocket
quote:
Cars had “standard” transmissions,
quote:
Most families had one TV. Not one in every room.
See, you're making my point about technology conflating things. Using your definition, people who were wealthy in 1860 were actually poor relative to even lower middle class people today.
There were really wealthy people in 1860 that did not have A/C, they did not have a phone, much less an iPhone, and their "cars" were powered by actual horses. Medical and dental care was atrociously barbaric.
It's true that I'd rather be lower middle class today than upper class back then but it's just not a fair apples to apples comparison. There's more to a person's happiness than material possessions. A person's satisfaction with their job and feeling of control over their own lives is huge. The lack of stress that a wealthy person in 1860 would have had compared to a low income person now is staggering.
This post was edited on 11/17/18 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 11/17/18 at 9:23 pm to BeepNode
quote:That’s entirely true. Yet lower middle class today feel like they are worse off than their predecessors. They aren’t.
Using your definition, people who were wealthy in 1860 were actually poor relative to even lower middle class people today.
quote:Yet here is a thread about people b*itching about things they can’t afford...
There's more to a person's happiness than material possessions.
quote:Indeed. But freedom and personal responsibility are things that have little to do with wealth.
A person's satisfaction with their job and feeling of control over their own lives is huge
quote:Compare middle class of both time frames. Which has a better lifestyle?
The lack of stress that a wealthy person in 1860 would have had compared to a low income person now is staggering.
As far as “lack of stress”... that’s a terrible measure. I personally know someone worth several hundred million dollars. Super stressed guy. He thrives on it... but there’s no denying few middle class households have anywhere near the stress this guy has.
I know another worth almost $1b and cleans his own toilets. He’s not stressed at all. But that’s because he’s down to earth.
This post was edited on 11/17/18 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 11/17/18 at 10:20 pm to Taxing Authority
I think you're missing the point. Technology has progressed and technology that used to only afforded by the wealthy can now be afforded by the middle class and even the poor simply because it costs less to make it than it used to. The thing about that is.. it is an ever changing paradigm and not a fair evaluation of the state of the middle class. Yes, the middle class has more desirable amenities than 50 years ago...because the cost of the amenities has come down.
I would think some of the best data points to use to compare the middle class between two given time periods would be things like ratio of debt to wealth on average, ratio of income to cost of living (or even break down cost of living to housing, food, etc) ratio of debt to savings, income to savings z etc.
I would think some of the best data points to use to compare the middle class between two given time periods would be things like ratio of debt to wealth on average, ratio of income to cost of living (or even break down cost of living to housing, food, etc) ratio of debt to savings, income to savings z etc.
Posted on 11/18/18 at 1:04 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Taxing Authority
:Whoosh:
Posted on 11/18/18 at 1:51 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
As far as “lack of stress”... that’s a terrible measure. I personally know someone worth several hundred million dollars. Super stressed guy. He thrives on it... but there’s no denying few middle class households have anywhere near the stress this guy has.
I know another worth almost $1b and cleans his own toilets. He’s not stressed at all. But that’s because he’s down to earth.
Stress is a bad metric because its relative. The two people you mentioned, worse case scenario for either is to lose their job. If that happens they have to live off savings until they get another job.
This isnt comparable to the average Joe who if they lose their job, they dont have the savings adequate enough for long term sustainability. And have a Greater chance of going destitute, especially if they have limited work options.
I respect your optimism and analysis, yet I think you have a more grandiose view of what the average American actually faces.
This post was edited on 11/18/18 at 2:00 am
Posted on 11/18/18 at 9:27 am to Hulkklogan
quote:I *do* get that. And I agree. The TV example is great. A single TV today is far cheaper than it was in he early 70s.
I think you're missing the point. Technology has progressed and technology that used to only afforded by the wealthy can now be afforded by the middle class and even the poor simply because it costs less to make it than it used to.
quote:Agree with this too. Instead of being satisfied by a single TV in he household, the cheaper TV has meant the new standard of “happiness” is a TV in each room.
The thing about that is.. it is an ever changing paradigm and not a fair evaluation of the state of the middle class.
quote:Right, but the corresponding desired standard has gone up. The problem with thst is... just because your desires have increased—it doesn’t mean you’re poorer or your standard of living has gone down.
Yes, the middle class has more desirable amenities than 50 years ago...because the cost of the amenities has come down.
And that’s the point. The best way to feel “rich” is to temper your wants. And understand what is really important vs. what consumer goods you want.
Posted on 11/18/18 at 9:28 am to volod
quote:Not really true though. My grandparents were poor. Like they gardened to have enough food to eat poor. They lived through the Great Depression. But it never effected them.
This isnt comparable to the average Joe who if they lose their job, they dont have the savings adequate enough for long term sustainability
Most people get stressed at a job loss because they have too much debt. No one in this country does from hunger. FFS the biggest risk to the impoverished’s health in this country is Obesity and its related diseases.
quote:Theres never been a better time to improve one’s work options than now. I have clients all over the globe. I can communicate with them for free. Anyone can learn anything. One has the entire knowledge of the entire world available to them in their pocket. There are few limits other than ones own resourcefulness.
especially if they have limited work options.
quote:You wouldn’t say that if you knew how poor I grew up.
I respect your optimism and analysis, yet I think you have a more grandiose view of what the average American actually faces.
This post was edited on 11/18/18 at 9:40 am
Posted on 11/18/18 at 12:23 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Right, but the corresponding desired standard has gone up. The problem with thst is... just because your desires have increased—it doesn’t mean you’re poorer or your standard of living has gone down.
Has it? Sounds like you're making assumptions and projecting, here. You may be right to some degree, but it's hard to prove and account for.
Posted on 11/18/18 at 12:36 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
The rich don’t trickle down
Who do you think employs the lower classes?
Speaking from personal experience, I have expansion plans and need a certain amount of capital to begin. If I am not taking any loans, there are really only 3 factors that dictate how quickly I can expand and hire more people:
1. How much I make
2. How much I spend
3. How much of what's left is taken by the government
Posted on 11/18/18 at 12:45 pm to volod
It depends entirely on your personal vantage point. Lots of people most of us would call rich would call themselves middle class. Lots of people living paycheck to paycheck would call themselves middle class because they're not on assistance.
Posted on 11/18/18 at 3:27 pm to shinerfan
quote:
Lots of people most of us would call rich would call themselves middle class. Lots of people living paycheck to paycheck would call themselves middle class because they're not on assistance
An easy solution to this would be to have a metric determining if you have X total income for your household, you fall into a certain class.
I agree people eschew their worth higher or lower relative to people they know, not the population at large.
As Authority said, a six figure job automatically puts you in the top 10%.
Also there is a BIG difference between a single person living alone versus 2 or more people.
Posted on 11/18/18 at 3:42 pm to volod
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/14/20 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 11/18/18 at 3:55 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
Has it? Sounds like you're making assumptions and projecting, here. You may be right to some degree, but it's hard to prove and account for.
There's tons of data on this, it's not debatable that people's wants have risen exponentially.
Posted on 11/18/18 at 4:00 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
If one lived to the same level a “middle class” family did in the 70’s on a 2018 salary they’d be flush with tons of money.
Can i go to school too for the same relative cost they paid in the 70s?
I also don't have a viable option to choose to live in conditions from the 70s
This post was edited on 11/18/18 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 11/18/18 at 4:02 pm to bmy
quote:
Can i go to school too for the same relative cost they paid in the 70s?
This is the only legitimate gripe. Secondary education is out of control. Everything else is just consumerism.
Posted on 11/18/18 at 4:03 pm to bmy
quote:
Can i go to school too for the same relative cost they paid in the 70s?
Government guaranteed student loans man. My tuition at LSU was $1100 or so in 1996. Our government decided that everyone should go to college and fixed it for us.
Posted on 11/18/18 at 4:09 pm to bmy
quote:
also don't have a viable option to choose to live in conditions from the 70s
Good thing you're not paying 1970s interest rates.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News