• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

NPR/Pew Research - Most Americans No Longer Are Middle Class

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Family of 3 with $42K a year = low end of middle class? Yike.

Not sure about that, even with low cost of living around here.


Bottom line: For a household with three people, being middle class means making between about $42,000 and $126,000. If your family of three makes less than $42,000, then you are in the lower class. If your family brings in more than $126,000, you are in the upper class.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...int-most-americans-no-longer-are-middle-class
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,056
4,708
126
An almost perfectly linear drop over the last 44 years, I blame Obama and Bush.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Well, yeh, but so long as some moved up into the FYGM class it's all good with Righties.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,741
126
I don't know how anyone can live on $42k a year. And this is household income. We aren't talking about single people here. We are talking about mom/dad and 1 child. My brother is a mailman with a wife and 1 daughter. He makes $65k a year and that's not even enough. His wife has to work as well. They are always complaining about money.

The middle class is a trap. People who were on the edge of the middle class are falling right into poverty. It's not about cutting back and saving money. The real reason why so many people are trapped is because they aren't able to produce more income. They are incapable of going into the marketplace and producing substantial income for their family. That's the issue. When an unexpected illness or an unforeseen event hits, the people operating in the middle class are done.
 
Last edited:

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Clearly we need to cut the taxes of the .01% so that they can create MOER JERBS.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
16,098
11,184
136
I don't know how anyone can live on $42k a year. And this is household income. We aren't talking about single people here. We are talking about mom/dad and 1 child. My brother is a mailman with a wife and 1 daughter. He makes $65k a year and that's not even enough. His wife has to work as well. They are always complaining about money.

The middle class is a trap. People who were on the edge of the middle class are falling right into poverty. It's not about cutting back and saving money. The real reason why so many people are trapped is because they aren't able to produce more income. They are incapable of going into the marketplace and producing substantial income for their family. That's the issue. When an unexpected illness or an unforeseen event hits, the people operating in the middle class are done.

Dude I remember growing up on 20k a year and my dad worked minimum wage and paid off a mortgage on minimum wage. But back then bills were not crazy.

I had to work and pay off college myself.. I took a gap year worked, saved money and augmented my college tuition by working on the side.

A lot of people are WORKING POOR, not just middle class. They're not lazy at all. You'd never know it but you notice it when someone still uses a 5 year old phone or 15 year old car.
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,406
389
126
Two people making 63.1k a year each and you are upper class? Not in the DC area.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
And a goodly percent of well to do lefties -- we have some on this board...


Brian

The difference is in what the sides propose to do about it. Recognizing an insufficiency of jobs & pay, the Left seeks to redefine the social contract to extend more of the benefits of our society to people who once got what they needed from working. Clearly, our own financial elite has no incentive to create jobs & to pay well enough to match that anymore.

The message needs to be clear- Jobs or taxes. If we have to settle for less, so do they. They may not need to hire Americans as they once did but Americans still need to feed the kids & pay the bills.

Leadership has responsibilities & consequences that our economic leadership needs to owe up to. Where we are today is the result of their leadership.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,799
10,094
136
Family of 3 with $42K a year = low end of middle class? Yike.

Not sure about that, even with low cost of living around here.

They'd have ~$63k a year if two adults were "fully" employed with $15/hour.
If they have $42k combined.... that's a good reason to fight for higher wages.
Hell, that $42k is barely above $9/hour.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Two people making 63.1k a year each and you are upper class? Not in the DC area.

They'd be riding the gravy train in most parts of the country. They wouldn't be doing badly anywhere.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,389
468
126
See this is why I always find it funny when people say America's greatness bankrupted the Soviet Union. The question is "at what cost?" Yeah in the 1950s and 1960s some working class stiff making $5,000 a year could buy a house with 2 years salary. Now it's closer to 8-10 years salary for the average American. But the rising costs of maintaining this empire has driven out all the manufacturing and production of this country as businesses flee increasing regulation and taxes to stay in business.

They use to call us "Ugly Americans" because we had all the money and working class Americans would be able to live like royalty around the world. Now it's the Chinese touring the world and and spending all the money made from manufacturing that used to be made in the USA.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
See this is why I always find it funny when people say America's greatness bankrupted the Soviet Union. The question is "at what cost?" Yeah in the 1950s and 1960s some working class stiff making $5,000 a year could buy a house with 2 years salary. Now it's closer to 8-10 years salary for the average American. But the rising costs of maintaining this empire has driven out all the manufacturing and production of this country as businesses flee increasing regulation and taxes to stay in business.

They use to call us "Ugly Americans" because we had all the money and working class Americans would be able to live like royalty around the world. Now it's the Chinese touring the world and and spending all the money made from manufacturing that used to be made in the USA.

Gawd. Business isn't fleeing this country. They're just using much, much cheaper offshore labor. Relatively speaking, American labor is cheaper than it was 40 years ago because productivity has soared but it's still not cheap enough for the Jerb Creators. It never will be again barring some massive realignment of world power. Get used to it. Figure out how else we can regain part of the pie we've sacrificed at the altar of trickle down economics.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
$126,000 isn't upper class, it's upper middle class. Thanks to reinflating the housing bubble, most of the people I know making more than median income aren't interested in affording a median home.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
See this is why I always find it funny when people say America's greatness bankrupted the Soviet Union. The question is "at what cost?" Yeah in the 1950s and 1960s some working class stiff making $5,000 a year could buy a house with 2 years salary. Now it's closer to 8-10 years salary for the average American. But the rising costs of maintaining this empire has driven out all the manufacturing and production of this country as businesses flee increasing regulation and taxes to stay in business.

They use to call us "Ugly Americans" because we had all the money and working class Americans would be able to live like royalty around the world. Now it's the Chinese touring the world and and spending all the money made from manufacturing that used to be made in the USA.

no.

your just not right, your the old guy yelling at kids get off my lawn.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,569
3,762
126
$126,000 isn't upper class, it's upper middle class. Thanks to reinflating the housing bubble, most of the people I know making more than median income aren't interested in affording a median home.

There have been some interesting discussions on the role that failing or sub-par school districts have in house price inflation.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
The difference is in what the sides propose to do about it. Recognizing an insufficiency of jobs & pay, the Left seeks to redefine the social contract to extend more of the benefits of our society to people who once got what they needed from working. Clearly, our own financial elite has no incentive to create jobs & to pay well enough to match that anymore.

The message needs to be clear- Jobs or taxes. If we have to settle for less, so do they. They may not need to hire Americans as they once did but Americans still need to feed the kids & pay the bills.

Leadership has responsibilities & consequences that our economic leadership needs to owe up to. Where we are today is the result of their leadership.


Except a lot of those in the 1% are self proclaimed leftist liberals until someone tries to reach in their pocket, they will be right behind you pushing the latest LGBT issue but turn into Scrooge when it comes to parting with their money.

http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg3-2009feb03-column.html

How about pro-gay rights Disney as an example
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/dis...ployees-makes-them-train-foreign-replacements

There was a lot to celebrate in the Magic Kingdom this year. The Disney Corporation had its most profitable year ever, with profits of $7.5 billion—up 22 percent from the previous year. Disney’s stock price is up approximately 150 percent over the past three years. These kinds of results have paid off handsomely for its CEO Bob Iger, who took home $46 million in compensation last year.


Disney prides itself on its recipe for “delighting customers,” a recipe it says includes putting employees first. They tout this as a key to their success in creating “a culture where going the extra mile for customers comes naturally” for employees. One method of creating this culture is referring to its employees as “cast members.” In fact, Disney is so proud of its organizational culture that it’s even created an institute to share its magic with other businesses (for a consulting fee, of course).


So, you would expect a firm that puts its employees first to share the vast prosperity that’s been created with the very employees who went above and beyond to help generate those record profits.


Well, how did Mr. Iger repay his workers—sorry, I mean cast members—for creating all this profit? Not with bonuses and a big raises. Instead, as the New York Times just detailed in a major report, he forced hundreds of them to train their own replacements—temporary foreign workers here on H-1B guestworker visas—before he laid them off.



What motivates a company to replace its American workers with H-1B guestworkers? One word: Profit. H-1B guestworkers are cheaper than American workers and don’t have much bargaining power, and any company would be foolish not to take advantage of this highly lucrative business model that has been inadvertently created by Congress and multiple presidential administrations. Of course, this business model is paid for by destroying the livelihoods and dignity of tens of thousands of American workers. The costs are also borne by American taxpayers, through foregone tax revenue and the additional social services that need to be provided for those newly unemployed American workers.


When it comes to using the H-1B to cut costs, Disney is far from an isolated case. The Disney news comes on the heels of multiple reports of corporate layoffs with H-1B replacements, at Southern California Edison, the Fossil Group in Texas, Pfizer and Northeast Utilities in Connecticut, Harley Davidson in Milwaukee and Kansas, and Cargill in Minnesota.
The full story of Disney’s injustice hasn’t yet come to light, because the company isn’t willing to speak about it, and displaced American workers are afraid to talk because they fear they won’t be hired elsewhere. Further, the Obama administration has refused to investigate any of the recent listed H-1B abuse cases. We know that Disney hired HCL, a major India-based offshore outsourcing firm, to bring in its H-1B workers. Like its rivals Tata, Infosys, and Wipro, HCL is one of the top H-1B employers in America. HCL is a publicly traded company, whose CEO Vineet Nayer once proclaimed that recent American graduates are “unemployable” because they expect too much and are too expensive to train.


HCL was the sixth largest recipient of H-1B visas in fiscal year 2013, with the Obama administration approving 1,713 H-1B visas for its workers. Like most top H-1B employers, government data reveal that HCL uses the program for cheap, temporary labor rather than as bridge to permanent immigration. In fiscal 2013 it applied for only 128 green cards, compared to its 1,713 new H-1B workers, or 7 percent of the H-1Bs it hired that year (because H-1B visas are valid for up to six years, HCL’s total H-1B workforce is much larger, but it does not disclose this information).

According to government data acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, the median wage HCL paid those 1,713 H-1B workers was $61,984, which is essentially the entry level wage for an information technology (IT) worker, and more importantly, a 25 percent discount on the median wage of $82,710 for Computer Systems Analysts in the United States. Moreover, it’s almost certain that Disney’s 25 percent H-1B discount is an understatement, because many of the laid off Disney workers I spoke with were earning approximately $100,000, and had been employed there for many years, so they had also earned and accumulated benefits packages based on their seniority.


It’s important to point out that Disney is not an outlier, it’s the norm. Loopholes in the H-1B program make it irresistible to corporations, whose sole goal has become to maximize profits and shareholder value. Appealing to patriotism, corporate social responsibility, or even a sense of moral decency is a fool’s game. If you don’t believe me, look no further than Disney, which brags about its awards for its corporate social responsibility.

We may not like it but in the contemporary U.S. business environment, ten out of ten corporate executives will choose to replace Americans with cheaper guestworkers—it would be a dereliction of their fiduciary duty to shareholders if they failed to take advantage of this. Congress, the president, and the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security should not sit idly by while this happens. They should reform the program so it can’t be used to undercut American workers and exploit foreign workers.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,901
4,927
136
See this is why I always find it funny when people say America's greatness bankrupted the Soviet Union. The question is "at what cost?" Yeah in the 1950s and 1960s some working class stiff making $5,000 a year could buy a house with 2 years salary. Now it's closer to 8-10 years salary for the average American. But the rising costs of maintaining this empire has driven out all the manufacturing and production of this country as businesses flee increasing regulation and taxes to stay in business.

They use to call us "Ugly Americans" because we had all the money and working class Americans would be able to live like royalty around the world. Now it's the Chinese touring the world and and spending all the money made from manufacturing that used to be made in the USA.

Businesses would flee even if taxes and regulation had stayed exactly the same. If you want to maximize profit margins and China doesn't have any laws against sweatshops/child labor/harmful disposal of toxic waste with a $1 an hour wages than how can the US possibly compete? The amount of deregulation you would need to make the US directly competitive with China would have to be so staggering that the middle class would still be dead.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
An almost perfectly linear drop over the last 44 years, I blame Obama and Bush.

How can you blame either Obama or Bush for this? And what could either have done differently? I'm looking for concrete real strategy, not the BS bluster that politicians like Trump spew constantly. I personally see no easy solutions.

This is a long term trend, part of being a mature economy that is the global leader. We piss away a lot more money on police actions than our financial competitors. Our tax structure is slanted towards accumulation and preservation of wealth by the very rich and not towards economic growth.

In the past US corporations wouldn't put billion dollar investments in places like China because of the fear that a small political change there could result in seizure or similar loss of the entire asset.

Can you imagine how much worse we'd be today without the development of the microcomputer industry. Companies like Microsoft and Apple have been a big chunk of American growth in the past 30 or so years.

If you must blame someone, look to Saint Ronny, who actively pushed American corporations to outsource overseas. But the current GOP mantra of no new taxes and reducing taxes and government services has also gone a long way to changing us from a vibrant democratic economy to a new South American oligopoly.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
Seems conservative, but I guess it depends where you live. If you make $100K in my city you are middle class. A decent home will run you at least $750K with effort put in finding one at that price, generally it's about a million to get a 3 bedroom home in a desirable neighborhood. With the cost of living here I would label $200K household income at upper middle class. To be wealthy and have the big house along with a couple six figure cars, you're going to need in the area of $400K minimum by my estimation on mortgage costs, taxes, car payments and all related necessity bills.

$42K and you'd be in a 1 bedroom apartment paying rent or a studio condo with a mortgage, probably unable to own a car and having to use public transit.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Seems conservative, but I guess it depends where you live. If you make $100K in my city you are middle class. A decent home will run you at least $750K with effort put in finding one at that price, generally it's about a million to get a 3 bedroom home in a desirable neighborhood. With the cost of living here I would label $200K household income at upper middle class. To be wealthy and have the big house along with a couple six figure cars, you're going to need in the area of $400K minimum by my estimation on mortgage costs, taxes, car payments and all related necessity bills.

$42K and you'd be in a 1 bedroom apartment paying rent or a studio condo with a mortgage, probably unable to own a car and having to use public transit.
Is that in CAD?
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,056
4,708
126
How can you blame either Obama or Bush for this? And what could either have done differently? I'm looking for concrete real strategy, not the BS bluster that politicians like Trump spew constantly. I personally see no easy solutions.

This is a long term trend, part of being a mature economy that is the global leader. We piss away a lot more money on police actions than our financial competitors. Our tax structure is slanted towards accumulation and preservation of wealth by the very rich and not towards economic growth.
I thought that it was clear enough sarcasm, especially since I blamed both political parties.

There are plenty of easy solutions. However, many are political suicide and won't be implemented. Others are not good ideas and will be implemented in the worst case situation. Income inequality is a very common situation and often ends poorly (massive inflation, war, rebellion, peasant revolts, etc).

Globalization has created the increase of the poor in the US. Tax code, laws, and business practices written by the wealthy for the wealthy have created the increase of the wealthy. We can't end globalization, and placing limits on it won't work long term. So, we have to go after the tax code, laws, and business practices. Not in a way that harms growth, but in a way that encourages growth. Your paragraph that I quoted is in the right mindset.

I am personally in favor of radical ideas such as reducing sales tax, reducing income tax, but increasing wealth tax. This encourages people to work harder (less income tax), enjoy more of the rewards from their hard work (less sales tax), but reduce stagnant money that helps only the very few and doesn't promote growth for the US as a whole (wealth tax).

But it doesn't have to be just about taxes. It can be about business practices and other laws. Take the recent trend that almost all new contracts now require arbitration. this helps the wealthy (business owners) and harms the poor (those who can no longer have class action lawsuits). These contracts are written by the wealthy for the wealthy. Then the poor get a take-it-or-leave-it contract for something that they often must purchase (i.e. they get no real say). That could be addressed fairly easily by congress.
 
Last edited:

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
I thought that it was clear enough sarcasm, especially since I blamed both political parties.

There are plenty of easy solutions. However, many are political suicide and won't be implemented. Others are not good ideas and will be implemented in the worst case situation. Income inequality is a very common situation and often ends poorly (massive inflation, war, rebellion, peasant revolts, etc).

Globalization has created the increase of the poor in the US. Tax code, laws, and business practices written by the wealthy for the wealthy have created the increase of the wealthy. We can't end globalization, and placing limits on it won't work long term. So, we have to go after the tax code, laws, and business practices. Not in a way that harms growth, but in a way that encourages growth. Your paragraph that I quoted is in the right mindset.

I am personally in favor of radical ideas such as reducing sales tax, reducing income tax, but increasing wealth tax. This encourages people to work harder (less income tax), enjoy more of the rewards from their hard work (less sales tax), but reduce stagnant money that helps only the very few and doesn't promote growth for the US as a whole (wealth tax).

But it doesn't have to be just about taxes. It can be about business practices and other laws. Take the recent trend that almost all new contracts now require arbitration. this helps the wealthy (business owners) and harms the poor (those who can no longer have class action lawsuits). These contracts are written by the wealthy for the wealthy. Then the poor get a take-it-or-leave-it contract for something that they often must purchase (i.e. they get no real say). That could be addressed fairly easily by congress.

A wealth tax sounds good, but I think that in practice there would be a lot of problems. For many entrepreneurs, their wealth is tied up in their enterprise, and you can't just cash out a piece to pay the tax man at the end of the year. If you just decide to go after liquid assets like cash and exchange listed securities, wealthy people will move out of those asset classes and into more tax advantaged investments.

I think the best solution is a substantial estate tax. Sales taxes should be eliminated entirely (agree there), mortgage deductions and deductions for charitable contributions should be eliminated. More progressive income taxes with additional brackets at the top.