Support NeoGAF

[NOLA_Gaffer]

Here I was thinking I was on one of the lowest levels of the middle class. Looks like I'm square in lower class territory.

Oh well, life moves on.

250k would be a dream for me. I just need a nice apartment, some nice shit, and spending money for the partying, booze, hookers, cocaine and vidya games.

Hell I could do all that with 120k and 250k is considered middle class? I fucking wish.

Yep. 250k is such a far away dream that I couldn't even fathom it.

 

[rando14]

You choose to have several kids and choose to stay in an expensive area. Your massive, five times the median $250k salary enabled these choices.

More wealth = more choices

Who knew!!

 

[Mr. Mister]

You choose to have several kids and choose to stay in an expensive area. Your massive, five times the median $250k salary enabled these choices.

You've really been cherrypicking the most extreme examples people are throwing out there.

Someone earlier in the thread nailed it. The reason people stay in these places even though the value of their dollar is relatively low is because it affords their children more opportunities. Ultimately I'm better off because of the struggle my parents went through. They gave me more options and opportunities that allowed me to move out of the rural south. Now that I have kids I am going to do the exact same thing. If that means that my income doesn't stretch as far because I chose to live in an expensive place so be it.

People in this thread act like it is full of complainers, I am not seeing anyone complaining about making over 100K in any serious manner.

 

[Kill3r7]

You choose to have several kids and choose to stay in an expensive area. Your massive, five times the median $250k salary enabled these choices.

I thought a wife, 2 kids and a dog was your standard middle class family.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

Here is my budget per month:

$2400 Mortgage
$550 Strata Fee & Property Tax
$200 BCHydro, Cable, Cellphone
$250 RRSP
$1100 Personal Trainer
$100 Internet Services (Apple Music, Cloud, Games)
$3000 Going Out Budget (Restaurants, Bars, Events, etc)
$300 Groceries (Don't really buy many groceries. My fridge right now has condiments, apples, and drinks).
$1000 Shopping Budget

Whatever's left goes towards savings but I don't save effectively yet. And I've taken a break lately and one coming up so paying debt back down was a major one too.

Your "going out budget" is more than what I make in a month after taxes.

For fuck's sake.

 

[D.Lo]

What's your point? Why does the government give tax breaks for people with kids if it's somehow irrelevant?

They are expenses you choose to have.

You could say '$250k isn't much when you have the upkeep of my three vintage Ferraris' and I would laugh. Having lots of kids and a house in an expensive place are choices in the same way.

Also, people on $20k have kids and somehow survive. Rich people make their kids even more of an expense by using them to justify an even bigger house, paying for them to go to fancy schools, buying them all the latest clothes/gadgets etc.

And if the government gives you tax breaks, well that just makes kids cheaper, and less of an excuse right?

 

[Skellig Gra]

They are expenses you choose to have.

You could say '$250k isn't much when you have the upkeep of my three vintage Ferraris' and I would laugh. Having lots of kids and a house in an expensive place are choices in the same way.

Also, people on $20k have kids and somehow survive. Rich people make their kids even more of an expense by using them to justify an even bigger house, paying for them to go to fancy schools, buying them all the latest clothes/gadgets etc.

And if the government gives you tax breaks, well that just makes kids cheaper, and less of an excuse right?

You are creating a pointless straw man here. No one is arguing that people making 250k are struggling to get by. I'm saying there are many more factors to consider than just gross income when talking about how well people are living.

 

[Bubba T]

People in this thread act like it is full of complainers, I am not seeing anyone complaining about making over 100K in any serious manner.

People worried the most about money usually don't have it.

 

[Marty Chinn]

They are expenses you choose to have.

You could say '$250k isn't much when you have the upkeep of my three vintage Ferraris' and I would laugh. Having lots of kids and a house in an expensive place are choices in the same way.

Also, people on $20k have kids and somehow survive. Rich people make their kids even more of an expense by using them to justify an even bigger house, paying for them to go to fancy schools, buying them all the latest clothes/gadgets etc.

And if the government gives you tax breaks, well that just makes kids cheaper, and less of an excuse right?

So everyone in the US is rich because they choose to live here instead of some third world country where a buck will get you food for several days and someone makes $5 a week right?

 

[UFO]

Here is my budget per month:

$2400 Mortgage
$550 Strata Fee & Property Tax
$200 BCHydro, Cable, Cellphone
$250 RRSP
$1100 Personal Trainer
$100 Internet Services (Apple Music, Cloud, Games)
$3000 Going Out Budget (Restaurants, Bars, Events, etc)
$300 Groceries (Don't really buy many groceries. My fridge right now has condiments, apples, and drinks).
$1000 Shopping Budget

Whatever's left goes towards savings but I don't save effectively yet. And I've taken a break lately and one coming up so paying debt back down was a major one too.

Gee I wonder why.

 

[ezrarh]

Here is my budget per month:

$2400 Mortgage
$550 Strata Fee & Property Tax
$200 BCHydro, Cable, Cellphone
$250 RRSP
$1100 Personal Trainer
$100 Internet Services (Apple Music, Cloud, Games)
$3000 Going Out Budget (Restaurants, Bars, Events, etc)
$300 Groceries (Don't really buy many groceries. My fridge right now has condiments, apples, and drinks).
$1000 Shopping Budget

Whatever's left goes towards savings but I don't save effectively yet. And I've taken a break lately and one coming up so paying debt back down was a major one too.

Bruh, let me be your personal trainer. I'll even make you look good in a tshirt

 

[rando14]

$1100 a month for a personal trainer, lmao

 

[D.Lo]

So everyone in the US is rich because they choose to live here instead of some third world country where a buck will get you food for several days and someone makes $5 a week right?

Relative to the world? Yes of course, most people in the US are rich.

 

[rando14]

Relative to the world? Yes of course, most people in the US are rich.

Ah here we go

What's the new rich threshold dear friend? Anyone above the poverty line?

 

[Bubba T]

Ah here we go

What's the new rich threshold dear friend? Anyone above the poverty line?

 

[D.Lo]

Ah here we go

I was asked a question and answered with an obvious fact.

This thread is not about that, it is about who is rich and who is middle class within America. When 50% of households make less than $50k, it seems like the cutoff for calling someone 'middle class' should be lower than five times that.

It seems people have decided that middle class means certain things (stuff like financial security, ability to move, living in a nice secure and connected area, home ownership, savings etc). But the reason it originally meant that was that at some point the middle 50% of the country could afford most of those things, not because they arbitrarily decided those things were 'about right'.

The middle 50% of the country can no longer afford those things. I say the definition of middle class should reflect reality, not some aspirational ideal.

 

[nilbog21]

Bruh, let me be your personal trainer. I'll even make you look good in a tshirt

lmao


I make 200k combined w/ my wife and I would consider myself upper class RICH AF. There is pretty much nothing we can't do. I could buy a lake house, I can travel anywhere in the world, I can drive any car I want pretty much, but the difference is I don't do any of those things. I bought a house and that's it. I save all my fucking money. I still drive a fucking scooter in the freezing weather. on paper i'm a fucking millionaire. If you make 250k and don't consider yourself upper class because you blow it on stupid unfullfilling shit then I hope you don't believe in Jesus cuz that is gona be a bad day coming

 

[Dylan Sexbang]

People in this thread talking about their "struggles"
Shit. My parents raised me and my brother on $500 a week single income for 14 years in Redondo Beach, CA. They still managed to give us a vacation once a year, birthday dinners, holiday celebrations, and any Christmas presents we wanted. These people can't even live off of $250k a year. Almost 10x what my old man's take home was, and he did it.

 

[Mr. Mister]

It seems people have decided that middle class means certain things (stuff like financial security, ability to move, living in a nice secure and connected area, home ownership, savings etc). But the reason it originally meant that was that at some point the middle 50% of the country could afford most of those things, not because they arbitrarily decided those things were 'about right'.

The middle 50% of the country can no longer afford those things. I say the definition of middle class should reflect reality, not some aspirational ideal.

Traditionally that is what middle class meant - house, savings, some luxuries. What you are describing is working class or lower and everyone agrees that it is a huge deal.

You don't get to redefine what middle class is - though I bet politicians would love your new definition. That way they can tell working poor that they are middle class like the refrigerator picture above.

 

[numble]

Traditionally that is what middle class meant - house, savings, some luxuries. What you are describing is working class or lower and everyone agrees that it is a huge deal.

You don't get to redefine what middle class is - though I bet politicians would love your new definition. That way they can tell working poor that they are middle class like the refrigerator picture above.

According to this US Census study, it seems most define it to be closer to median income, what is the source of your "traditional definition"?

https://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/publications/other/renwick_short-SPM.pdf

There is no official definition of the middle class in the United States. In recent years, analysts have used a variety of income concepts to define middle class in the United States. For example:
 A 2008 Pew Research Center study defined the middle class as those with incomes between 75 percent and 150 percent of overall adjusted median income with income adjusted for household size using the square root of household size (Taylor)
 A January 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration report constructed hypothetical budgets based on income at the 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile of the income distribution.
 Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median (Williams)
 Aaron Pacitti, an assistant professor of economics at Siena College suggested that middle income should be defined as the middle of this middle, between 75 percent and 125 percent of the median. (Williams)
 A 2012 Brookings Institute study defined middle class as having an income greater than 300 percent of the poverty line. (Sawhill).
 A 2012 Pew Research Center study defined the middle tier as all adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national median with incomes adjusted for household size and then scaled to reflect a three person household. (Pew Research Center)
 A 2013 policy memo from the Hamilton Project defined lower middle class as families with incomes between 100 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level. (Kearney

 

[Tabris]

Gee I wonder why.

Okay that was really funny.

I'm not looking to save effectively yet. Saving is boring. Live your boring average life so you have enough money to live an average boring life in retirement.

 

[Mr. Mister]

According to this US Census study, it seems most define it to be closer to median income, what is the source of your "traditional definition"?

https://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/publications/other/renwick_short-SPM.pdf

In your source itself it states - "There is no official definition of the middle class in the United States."

For me I generally go on what we were taught in school and popular culture since post World War II - hence traditional definition. Do you really want me to provide you with a list of reading material that supports that particular "definition"? If so I'll recommend you a few books who have done studies that define it that way.

One thing I can say it is it silly to try and make it based on money. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread using that as a benchmark does not take in to account cost of living in an area and children.

 

[simplayer]

Okay that was really funny.

I'm not looking to save effectively yet. Saving is boring. Live your boring average life so you have enough money to live an average boring life in retirement.

And live in poverty when you're in retirement

 

[D.Lo]

You don't get to redefine what middle class is - though I bet politicians would love your new definition. That way they can tell working poor that they are middle class like the refrigerator picture above.

The 'middle class' will move with the times and the economy. It's not a redefinition.

Middle class people in the 60s didn't have an iPad and a computer, and they likely do now. They also made 15k, but inflation means the median is now 50k. Both 'middle classes' of people are defined by their times.

Locking the definition based on what the middle group of people could afford in one particular time period is actually changing the definition.

EDIT: What we should really be saying is 'You now have to be in the top 10th percentile to have an equivalent lifestyle (relative to the economy and technology of the day) as a 50th percentile person could in the 50s'.

 

[Vicetrailia]

A lot of people that you will find are just bad budgeters. Many people are just "lucky" to make enough money so they aren't making tough budget choices. Or even if they sometimes are, they are still bad budgeters every other time. Budgeting is a bitch.

 

[Mr. Mister]

The 'middle class' will move with the times and the economy. It's not a redefinition.

Middle class people in the 60s didn't have an iPad and a computer, and they likely do now. They also made 15k, but inflation means the median is now 50k. Both 'middle classes' of people are defined by their times.

Locking the definition based on what the middle group of people could afford in one particular time period is actually changing the definition.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree. To me, dependent on where you live, you are describing working poor. No idea why you wish to define them as middle class as it hides how dire the actual situation is.

 

[numble]

In your source itself it states - "There is no official definition of the middle class in the United States."

For me I generally go on what we were taught in school and popular culture since post World War II - hence traditional definition. Do you really want me to provide you with a list of reading material that supports that particular "definition"? If so I'll recommend you a few books who have done studies that define it that way.

One thing I can say it is it silly to try and make it based on money. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread using that as a benchmark does not take in to account cost of living in an area and children.

I know there is no official definition. But it also does not seem to say there is a "traditional definition".

Sure, please recommend a few books. As many of those stated definitions provide, a range of income and adjustments for family size will allow cost of living and family size to be taken into account.

 

[D.Lo]

Guess we will have to agree to disagree. To me, dependent on where you live, you are describing working poor. No idea why you wish to define them as middle class as it hides how dire the actual situation is.

See my edit.

My point is that calling someone in the top 5% 'middle' is a distortion and hides the awful modern reality.

'Middle class' is a loaded political term now. The dialogue should actually be "The actual statistical middle class can no longer afford the American dream. The country is therefore fucked".

 

[numble]

Guess we will have to agree to disagree. To me, dependent on where you live, you are describing working poor. No idea why you wish to define them as middle class as it hides how dire the actual situation is.

There actually is a federal definition of being poor--it is based on income and allows adjustments based on family size and cost of living--allowing you to qualify or disqualify for certain benefits if you are below or above the line, and it is not based on the median--a household with 50-60k income is not considered poor by the official government definition.

 

[kewlmyc]

These threads always make me feel inadequate. That's what I get for fucking around in college.

 

[Mr. Mister]

There actually is a federal definition of being poor--it is based on income and allows adjustments based on family size and cost of living--allowing you to qualify or disqualify for certain benefits if you are below or above the line, and it is not based on the median--a household with 50-60k income is not considered poor by the official government definition.

I pmed you with reading material.

Just as an FYI the government is incentivized to keep that definition as low as possible. Honestly 50k pre tax in SF or NYC with 2 kids is working poor. Yes then can put food on the table and afford a few small luxuries but there is no future planning. If you can't save or if an unexpected 2k expense is going to throw a major wrench into future plans you are not middle class.

 

[numble]

I pmed you with reading material.

Just as an FYI the government is incentivized to keep that definition as low as possible. Honestly 50k pre tax in SF or NYC with 2 kids is working poor. Yes then can put food on the table and afford a few small luxuries but there is no future planning. If you can't save or if an unexpected 2k expense is going to throw a major wrench into future plans you are not middle class.

Median income has adjustments for family size and location. The median income for a 4 person family in California in 2005 is over $70k, over $72k in New York--the trend based on that data would say it is over $80k today. I don't call that poor:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statistics/4person.html

If you would reject the objective traditional definition of poor, you should understand why people support a definition for middle class that is supported by many analysts.

 

[Mr. Mister]

Median income has adjustments for family size and location. The median income for a 4 person family in California in 2005 is over $70k, over $72k in New York--the trend based on that data would say it is over $80k today. I don't call that poor:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statistics/4person.html

If you would reject the objective traditional definition of poor, you should understand why people support a definition for middle class that is supported by many analysts.

I didn't say California, I said SF. Also CA is down to 62k in 2014 according to this ACS report which is what the government uses for census data - which for some reason is always higher go figure.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

And yes I'm willing to reject what you consider a traditional definition of working poor because I think it is wrong. You want everything to be black and white but it isn't.

 

[Necromanti]

I'm not looking to save effectively yet. Saving is boring. Live your boring average life so you have enough money to live an average boring life in retirement.

I don't know about that. I know people who are saving up so that they can build towards realizing their long-term goals and dreams, hoping to one day do something meaningful that will change the world. I know others who spend all their money on what they would call "experiences" so that they would have something interesting to think back to in the future. Everyone is different. Some people want more out of life. Some are satisfied with just living it. Others still cannot afford to have the luxury to even consider those options.

 

[numble]

I didn't say California, I said SF. Also CA is down to 62k in 2014 according to this: ACS report which is what the government uses for census data - which for some reason is always higher go figure.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

And yes I'm willing to reject what you consider a traditional definition of poor because I think it is wrong. You want everything to be black and white but it isn't.

Your link does not work. Using it myself, it shows median household income of 61,489, but that is not broken out into 4 person families like my citation. If you are only using median income, that is disingenuous, as that is different from the median for a 4-household family.

The median income in California in 2005 was $63k for married couples:
https://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/press/archive/2007/07_17attach.pdf

But it was over $70k for 4 person families:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statistics/4person.html

In 2013, the median income for married couples in California was $73k:
https://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/press/2015/Release_2015_12_attachment.pdf

You claim that it is down to $62k in 2014. It does not follow that there was a $11k reduction in income in 1 year, so I can only deduce that you are using the median income number instead of a number that adjusts for family size.

SF is in California.

How am I wanting everything to be black and white if you want to reject certain definitions? I am the one that is actually open to multiple definitions, otherwise I wouldn't have cited many different criteria. You seem to reject them all except your definition, and then say it isn't black and white.

 

[FLEABttn]

We looked at moving to DC and earning twice what we do now, but expenses would be more than twice (near triple) for equivalent lifestyle (housing, daycare...). Maybe when the kids are older.

Well, yeah DC is expensive, so don't live in DC. There's a lot of Maryland and Virginia you can live in too.

But if you did...

My monthly housing cost per month doubled when I bought out here, but my new place is bigger and nicer than what I had in Albuquerque, in a nicer area, with the probability that my house actually appreciates in value, with better job prospects in general, with better opportunity for upward mobility professionally, and actual things to do on weekends. My 401k amount is going further by the nature of it being a percent of my income, so more money is going to that even though there's a decent chance I won't even retire here.

You couldn't get me to go back to the sticks.

 

[Macam]

$1100 a month for a personal trainer, lmao

Bruh, let me be your personal trainer. I'll even make you look good in a tshirt

So I just wandered into this thread, was skimming this last page, saw that, and thought the same thing. If that's one trainer, he/she ain't gonna need too many clients to live pretty well. That's pretty much a 5-year membership to my local gym. In a major city. In a hot neighborhood. In California.

I mean, it's your money and all, buuuut:

 

[Marty Chinn]

SF is in California.

California is a huge state. Places like Sacramento and the Central Valley bring down what the median is when you factor state wide. Hell, the difference between culture, economics, etc from SoCal and NorCal are dramatic so to lump SF along with the rest of CA is missing the point on how different the Bay Area is. Hell you might as well discount CA being any distinction because it's all part of the US, but there's a reason people point out CA and NY are different.

 

[Mr. Mister]

How am I wanting everything to be black and white if you want to reject certain definitions? I am the one that is actually open to multiple definitions, otherwise I wouldn't have cited many different criteria. You seem to reject them all except your definition, and then say it isn't black and white.

Because ultimately I reject numbers to define poor and middle class because they aren't meaningful. What are the cost breakdowns for a monthly budget of the poor as defined by the United States government? Just throwing out numbers tells us nothing of lifestyle, sustainability, location, etc. It is just a number with the word "poor" next to it and then you pointing back to the number to say that it defines poor. It tells me nothing so it doesn't define anything.

 

[B-Dubs]

Here is my budget per month:

$2400 Mortgage
$550 Strata Fee & Property Tax
$200 BCHydro, Cable, Cellphone
$250 RRSP
$1100 Personal Trainer
$100 Internet Services (Apple Music, Cloud, Games)
$3000 Going Out Budget (Restaurants, Bars, Events, etc)
$300 Groceries (Don't really buy many groceries. My fridge right now has condiments, apples, and drinks).
$1000 Shopping Budget

Whatever's left goes towards savings but I don't save effectively yet. And I've taken a break lately and one coming up so paying debt back down was a major one too.

Christ, you spend more on going out than I make in a goddamned month.

 

[Red]

These threads always make me feel inadequate. That's what I get for fucking around in college.

I graduated with honors and make almost $20k a year

That's four years after college. Improvement seems like a crazy pipe dream.

My wife makes nearly 3x more than I do, so we do well enough. I grew up in a family of 6 on an income of 24k—in Astoria. I honestly I feel really thankful for the things I have now. We own a house, two cars, and have many luxuries I would never have imagined as a child, living with my family in various 2 bedroom apartments. It's crazy to me to even imagine an income of 250k. With what my wife and I currently make, we are managing a mortgage, two car payments, utilities, student loans, and maintain a $0 balance on our credit cards. We still manage to save. And money is not so tight we cannot spend frivolously... We both have new iPhones, we go out often, we give at least 2% of our income to charity every month. The more I think about it the more I am stumped about how I would even spend an increase of nearly $200,000 a year.

 

[Cyan]

Okay that was really funny.

I'm not looking to save effectively yet. Saving is boring. Live your boring average life so you have enough money to live an average boring life in retirement.

Ok now I'm thinking joke character.

 

[numble]

Because ultimately I reject numbers to define poor and middle class because they aren't meaningful. What are the cost breakdowns for a monthly budget of the poor as defined by the United States government? Just throwing out numbers tells us nothing of lifestyle, sustainability, location, etc. It is just a number with the word "poor" next to it and then you pointing back to the number to say that it defines poor. It tells me nothing so it doesn't define anything.

I think you forgot to address the rest of my post.

How are they not meaningful? They are extremely meaningful, especially the numbers I provided which broke down median income by California county and filing status. I also included numbers based on family size and location. You just reject it and say median income means working poor. I provided a link that says median income of a married couple in Marin County in 2013 is $113,000, and you don't think that is meaningful to the discussion?

 

[wildfire]

You choose to have several kids and choose to stay in an expensive area. Your massive, five times the median $250k salary enabled these choices.

You really lack perspective. Poorer families have larger families historically and still do today even in America. Richer people tend to to choose to have less kids.


Go on keep on peddling this nonsense that $25K for a single person is manageable all over this country. Keep on ignoring the impact of government assistance for people earning that much and the limited means to save for emergencies or investments into a new car or home.

 

[Mr. Mister]

I think you forgot to address the rest of my post.

How are they not meaningful? They are extremely meaningful, especially the numbers I provided which broke down median income by California county and filing status. I also included numbers based on family size and location. You just reject it and say median income means working poor. I provided a link that says median income of a married couple in Marin County in 2013 is $113,000, and you don't think that is meaningful to the discussion?

Yea I ignored it because I was getting baited into a numbers game that I just don't believe in.

What I am saying is that numbers do not tell the story they are just numbers. They say nothing about what poor actually means or what middle class actually means. You can tell the family that make 50k pre tax in SF with two kids that "hey according to census numbers I'd define you as doing mildly okay" and you'd be wrong.

Tell me in words what poor and middle class are. Give me a monthly budget breakdown for each. Describe them.

 

[Byakuya769]

Fight over semantics... But at the end of the day, Americans our working more for less across the board. Can't we all agree on that?

 

[Red]

Fight over semantics... But at the end of the day, Americans our working more for less across the board. Can't we all agree on that?

Like others have said, the big problem is not the gap between the low and high end of "middle class." The big problem is the gap between middle class and the insane corpulent wealth of the top 1%.

I think nearly everyone agrees with you.

The featured article is specifically about semantics though.

 

[numble]

Yea I ignored it because I was getting baited into a numbers game that I just don't believe in.

What I am saying is that numbers do not tell the story they are just numbers. They say nothing about what poor actually means or what middle class actually means. You can tell the family that make 50k pre tax in SF with two kids that "hey according to census numbers I'd define you as doing mildly okay" and you'd be wrong.

Tell me in words what poor and middle class are. Give me a monthly budget breakdown for each. Describe them.

How am I baiting you into a numbers game? I am using the numbers you provided.

You are ignoring everything I am saying if you think I am saying the median income is consistent across locations and family sizes. I have said that median income is different from location and family size, and that median income is not working poor.

 

[Mr. Mister]

How am I baiting you into a numbers game? I am using the numbers you provided.

You are ignoring everything I am saying if you think I am saying the median income is consistent across locations and family sizes. I have said that median income is different from location and family size, and that median income is not working poor.

So out of curiosity using words not numbers what does a middle class life style for a family of four?

 

[numble]

So out of curiosity using words not numbers what does a middle class life style for a family of four?

You seem to have a run-on question here? What are you asking?