What's hurting the middle class?

[EagleKeeper]

My ears are burning.

Now having spent time reading the article, researching the bankruptcy bill and reading all the posts in this thread, I will chime in my $0.02 worth.

The bankruptcy bill was built for the credit card/load companies as a way of protecting them from themselves.

The increase of minimums was intended to prevent debt from being extended forever.
Too many people were just paying the bare mins and never actually reducing their debt load. The theory was to force people to actually start to pay down the plastic debt.
It also was hoped to allow more funds to become paid down before getting written off.

The loan companies are not required to have a max min amount. They are also using the increase as a way of also attaching additional fees.
They have allowed the savvy consumer to take advantage of the competition; therefore they will make it up on the less savvy.

The big problem here is that people are already trapped in the cycle and can notbreak out of it and/or play one CC against another to the consumer benefits.




With respect to the article:

Attempting to move the responsibility from the back of the consumer to the government and business sectors does a disservice to the article.

People get themselves into trouble by not planning for the possibility that their situation could change.

Additional income is great, but it caused additional expenses that can not easily be reduced.

=======================================

The numbers that they used for automobile costs seem very low.
Many people will by an econo-box to get around that will not survive more than 5 years.
These econo-boxes are also more likely to be damaged and leave the buyer with an upside down loan on them.
Many people are also leasing their vehicles with hides the actual cost of the vehicle.
A $4000 yearly cost for a vehicle seems understated by at least $1-2K.

=======================================

Health care costs are about the only area that people cannot control. Insurance coverage will help, however, when one is sick, one must get care.
If the care creates a loss of income, then that doubles the problem.

=======================================

Housing costs are due to the effect of trying to keep up with the Jones. People have been conditioned to get the most house they can make it with not matter what the financial impact. The expectation is that the increase in house value will compensate for the pain of having less disposable income how. With the ability of home equity loans and credit cards being "handed out" at closing; the pain is not felt upfront.

Again, any hiccup will have great impact.
Insurance increase, damages, income loss, tax levies, etc.

=======================================

Blaming the education for housing cost may be a reason, however, to request that the government pick up additional educational costs is outrageous.
Preschool (ie daycare) is because of additional middle class parents both working.
That is their choice to do so; they decided to swap time with their children for the almighty dollar to support their lifestyle.

Many times Post HS education for the next 2 years is a partial rehash of what should have been taught in HS.
Most HS systems have advance courses that are equivalent to what is taught in JC.
Asking the taxpayers to pick up the tab for a student that has not been properly prepared by themselves, the educations and the family is not fair. A student does not have to have a $10K/year education in the first couple of years of college.

=======================================

Again it goes back to setting of priorities and determining if everything is required vs desired.

Both couples working initially may be for economic needs; however, as time progresses the primary motivation becomes of lesser importance to the fact that they have adjusted their life style and now require the dual incomes to support themselves.
Any hiccup for either wage earner will cause great pain because they now rely on both incomes.

One can want the best education for one's children and you have the right to demand it from your school system that you pay taxes for. To move out of the "bad" area and then complain about the additional taxes and housing costs again goes into the fact of "keeping up with the Jones"

=======================================

The article covers all areas but attempts to shift the blame around and off the middle class.
For almost all of the items that were listed, any one issue/problem could be handled; however multiple items will crack any family even if quality planning.
However, because many will not be willing to accept a loss of status, the situation becomes critical.

Many of the examples in the article are cherry picking.
For almost every "excuse", one can find a rebuttal or example from the other side of the fence.

Personal choice is the issue and people have chosen to live on the edge and gamble with their future.

There is usually time for people to pull back from the brink, if they are willing to make some hard choices.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
What this article really shows is that inflation is underreported. Income is up 75% but basic expenses are now 75% rather than the 58% it used to be? That doesn't add up. The government is underreporting inflation to make the economy look better than it really is and to reduce SS obligations.

The so called scope of "basic" has increased:

# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Text

If people bought cars without the automatic brake systems, the crash-resistant steel frames, or the dual airbags that they lacked in the past cars would be cheaper too.

What does "the poor" have to do with the OP? Do you enjoy bashing the poor even in a thread that is clearly about the middle class? Do you think you're better than they are? To all of your stats above, I say "SO?"

By the way, in today's wacky world of e-tailing, you can get some of those items for FREE if not paid. Maybe visit the hot deals forum instead of thinking of ways to bash the poor or non CEO/corporate worshippers and you'll see. I paid a whopping $31 (that includes tax) for a VCR, a 36" (yes, 36 inch) RCA TV and a movie a few years ago. I have two DVD players that I was paid a total of $55.00 to take home. Not to mention a FREE PC, free digital camera and numerous free items. Don't give the the crap that people who have these things necessarily pay lots of cash for them. Get our of your room and dream world you little snot nosed kid.

While zendari may have his own motivations for what he posted above, I deal with people like he posted above on a regular basis and these are the things I noticed.

You can't tell many of them anything even if you are trying to help them, they get personally offended and instead of taking sound advice like you posted above which I bolded they out smart themselves and end up worse then when they started.

Here are some of the many situations I was personally involved in several posts down.

Some of them escape the frog in the well syndrome that holds many of them back but most don't, but what what bothers me the most is not the situation they are in but how they get offended when you try to help them even though they asked for help:|

My anecdotal two cents.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Blaming the education for housing cost may be a reason, however, to request that the government pick up additional educational costs is outrageous.
Preschool (ie daycare) is because of additional middle class parents both working.
That is their choice to do so; they decided to swap time with their children for the almighty dollar to support their lifestyle.

I would be curious as to what you expect or suggest parents do then so that one can stay home? speaking for my own soon to be family we would love it if my wife could stay home and care for the newborn until at least they reach the age of standard schooling however to do so would mean increasing my commute by at least two hours each way every day, footing the expense of said move, and more than likely living in a rather undesireable neighborhood, and when the time comes for school to start my child would be relegated to attending a poor school that doesn't provide much in terms of environment and or quality of education...

I think for many parents they aren't trying to support "their" lifestyle, but speaking for myself they are trying to do what is best for their children...something states like Massachusetts don't really care about as their socio economic system is starting to gear towards supporting/accomodating the retiring baby boomers....towns would rather assist in building retirement communities to house empty nesters who will eat out and spend money than fund schools and aid with lower cost housing as the former brings in a crapload of money weras the latter costs them a bundle and is much more work...i

Your idea of personal choice seems to be that the middle class should just accept the cards they have been dealt and just ride it out...if you have little money then you aren't entitled to a commute that is reasonable, or schools for your children that are safe and well funded, or a house that is comfortable...

sorry but I couldn't disagree more.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
My ears are burning.

Now having spent time reading the article, researching the bankruptcy bill and reading all the posts in this thread, I will chime in my $0.02 worth.

The bankruptcy bill was built for the credit card/load companies as a way of protecting them from themselves.

The increase of minimums was intended to prevent debt from being extended forever.
Too many people were just paying the bare mins and never actually reducing their debt load. The theory was to force people to actually start to pay down the plastic debt.
It also was hoped to allow more funds to become paid down before getting written off.

The loan companies are not required to have a max min amount. They are also using the increase as a way of also attaching additional fees.
They have allowed the savvy consumer to take advantage of the competition; therefore they will make it up on the less savvy.

The big problem here is that people are already trapped in the cycle and can notbreak out of it and/or play one CC against another to the consumer benefits.

Personal choice is the issue and people have chosen to live on the edge and gamble with their future.

There is usually time for people to pull back from the brink, if they are willing to make some hard choices.

Well I was doing OK until the CC Companies upped the minimum by 10 times and raised the interest to 24.88%

Not sure what I can do, guess I will find out how big my butt is going to get from them.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
What this article really shows is that inflation is underreported. Income is up 75% but basic expenses are now 75% rather than the 58% it used to be? That doesn't add up. The government is underreporting inflation to make the economy look better than it really is and to reduce SS obligations.

The so called scope of "basic" has increased:

# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Text

If people bought cars without the automatic brake systems, the crash-resistant steel frames, or the dual airbags that they lacked in the past cars would be cheaper too.

I don't doubt the veracity of what you say but it's all besides the point. I never said that the standard of living hasn't increased. It has. Also, I doubt that the article included DVD players in the monthly expenses that it considered basic.

(Also, as an aside, the average car is cheaper in terms of % yearly income than in the past even including all the fancy features that are standard nowadays.)

What I'm really getting at is the question of how expenses could possibly be higher as a percent of income now than in the past if we truly have 75% more income now than a generation ago on an inflation adjusted basis. I bet the previous generation had their basic expenses as a % of income go down compared to their parents's generation even after including all the improvements in standard of living that would be counted as "basic".

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Blaming the education for housing cost may be a reason, however, to request that the government pick up additional educational costs is outrageous.
Preschool (ie daycare) is because of additional middle class parents both working.
That is their choice to do so; they decided to swap time with their children for the almighty dollar to support their lifestyle.

I would be curious as to what you expect or suggest parents do then so that one can stay home? speaking for my own soon to be family we would love it if my wife could stay home and care for the newborn until at least they reach the age of standard schooling however to do so would mean increasing my commute by at least two hours each way every day, footing the expense of said move, and more than likely living in a rather undesireable neighborhood, and when the time comes for school to start my child would be relegated to attending a poor school that doesn't provide much in terms of environment and or quality of education...

I think for many parents they aren't trying to support "their" lifestyle, but speaking for myself they are trying to do what is best for their children...something states like Massachusetts don't really care about as their socio economic system is starting to gear towards supporting/accomodating the retiring baby boomers....towns would rather assist in building retirement communities to house empty nesters who will eat out and spend money than fund schools and aid with lower cost housing as the former brings in a crapload of money weras the latter costs them a bundle and is much more work...i

Your idea of personal choice seems to be that the middle class should just accept the cards they have been dealt and just ride it out...if you have little money then you aren't entitled to a commute that is reasonable, or schools for your children that are safe and well funded, or a house that is comfortable...

sorry but I couldn't disagree more.

You, as a parent, are wanting to improve your lifestyle to make a better environment for your children.
That is a choice that you are making. You are willing to sacrifice the parent being home for an increased income level. that additional income allows your family to improve your lifestyle as compared to that of the previous income level.

It is not that the middle class needs to accept the cards that they are being dealt, but that they need to accept that they choose to sit down at the game table in the first place. Tjhey can also walk away from the game table. It may be a loss of face; however, they will not lose anything more.

Many years ago, the middle class was willing to sacrifice and delay large purchases until they could afford them. Now days, people want the instant gratification now and are willing to compremise their security to have it.

If all goes well, they are fine; when something happens, then they are reluctant to look in the mirror.

In almost every town there are good and bad areas. Some towns have better schooling systems than others. This is a product of the people that have lived there prior and worked to set /keep standards. Many of those people at the time were middle class and were willing to pay the cost of keeping the educational system and town quality up.

One must balance out the needs. Income can lead to a higher standard which leads to higher fixed costs. Loose the higher income and then something must give.

The government should not get into the business of trying to ensure that everyone is able to compete at the same level. the same goes with edcuation. A minimum standard should exists and it is up to the community to raise that standard as they choose to.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well I was doing OK until the CC Companies upped the minimum by 10 times and raised the interest to 24.88%

Not sure what I can do, guess I will find out how big my butt is going to get from them.

Not to scold you or any one else; but by using a CC you are borrowing money with the expectation of being able to pay it off.

If circumstances change and you can not do so (pay what you borrowed); then you are placed unwillingly in the position of bending over for the telephone pole.

In the olden days, it was the local loan shark's enforcer that created a hospital visit.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
You, as a parent, are wanting to improve your lifestyle to make a better environment for your children.
That is a choice that you are making. You are willing to sacrifice the parent being home for an increased income level. that additional income allows your family to improve your lifestyle as compared to that of the previous income level.

It is not that the middle class needs to accept the cards that they are being dealt, but that they need to accept that they choose to sit down at the game table in the first place. Tjhey can also walk away from the game table. It may be a loss of face; however, they will not lose anything more.

Many years ago, the middle class was willing to sacrifice and delay large purchases until they could afford them. Now days, people want the instant gratification now and are willing to compremise their security to have it.

If all goes well, they are fine; when something happens, then they are reluctant to look in the mirror.

In almost every town there are good and bad areas. Some towns have better schooling systems than others. This is a product of the people that have lived there prior and worked to set /keep standards. Many of those people at the time were middle class and were willing to pay the cost of keeping the educational system and town quality up.

One must balance out the needs. Income can lead to a higher standard which leads to higher fixed costs. Loose the higher income and then something must give.

The government should not get into the business of trying to ensure that everyone is able to compete at the same level. the same goes with edcuation. A minimum standard should exists and it is up to the community to raise that standard as they choose to.

I would be curious as to which parents don't want to improve things for their children especially when the services provided in lower end communities are abysmal at best...honestly it doesn't seem like quality education is much of a "choice" but a necessity these days if you don't want to stack the deck against your children....

If there was an affordable area which provided decent schooling options and was reasonable for my wife and I to live there with only my pulling in income I know I and about a million other parents/families would jump right on it, but the reality is that this fantasy land does not exist because towns don't pull in as much revinue from young families as they do from retired baby boomers, not to mention the added costs towns incur trying to revamp school systems....Which leaves young families holding the bag choosing really bad neighborhoods with poor school systems that put themselves in their family either in possible danger or they drastically take away from the basic quality of life as it is all they can afford...

I really think your being short sighted with your assumptions on all of the middle class, sure there are some who spend excessivly but I and the many pieces I have read on the subject feel that these cases are not the norm, especially for those who have families to support.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then as I do feel government, be it state, local and or federal should have some say in the minimum level of service a community will provide, be it by financial assistance or what not....if communities are left to their own devices then only the affluent areas will flourish leaving the low income to rot and further widening the gap between the haves and the have nots...an educated society should look to better the whole instead of only concentrating on those with the most money. I can only hope that people who share your pov are in the minority, scary stuff.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: techs
Whats hurting the middle class?
1) Outsourcing which is keeping down wages.
With every reduction in trade barriers, America becomes more productive, wealthy and better off.
2) Illegal immigrant workers keeping down wages.
Illegal Immigrants have little to no impact on American wages.link
3) The tax cut which 50 percent went to the wealthiest 2 percent. Increasing the distribution of wealth away from the middle class to the wealthiest.
Everyone in the country received a tax cut. Who's to say the rich were not overtaxed before the cut, who's to say they are under taxed today? Define fair taxation. Besides a $1 million tax cut for 1 person will do far more for the economy than a $1 tax cut for 1 million people.
3) Massive borrowing and spending at time the age distribution (Americans are disproportionately at their highest wage earning ages) in America should be generating massive surpluses to pay for massive expenditures in the near future.
Surpluses are not always a good thing, means you are either limiting growth and prosperity through over taxation, or not investing enough for future growth and prosperity. There is a balance and one cannot just say surpluses are better.link
4) Trade policies that encourage theft of intellectual property of American companies.
This has little impact on the large scheme of things, typically lobbyists and protectionists put so many restrictions of American intellectual property, it creates incentive to steal. Canada sells cheaper drugs to poor Americans all the time; I suppose this is a bad thing in your eyes.
5) Foreign policies that have made America unwelcome in many areas of the world.
I can agree with this to some extent, although many peacekeeping missions are not as simple as saying 'no' to everyone.
6) Huge defense spending that is draining money away that could have been used for industrial growth in the manufacturing sector and bleeding away our best and brightest to the defense contractors.
Typically the most advanced manufacturing for military applications are fabricated domestically. Without military spending, no more industry would come in its place, it is a unique industry with its own products. I agree the US spends too much on military.
7) Health care policies that are encouraging huge increases in health care while delivering less care.
No country in the world is very effective at distributing healthcare, it is a huge opportunity. Effective healthcare policies are fuzzy and nobody really has an answer on how to solve it.
8) Energy policies that have kept America wasteful of oil and draining our money away to foreign lands.
Europe's efficient use of energy comes from the heavy taxation of fuels in the past, higher oil prices will have a similar effect in the US. What is more encouraging for alternate energy when current energy prices are high? You must support higher oil prices! :thumbs up;link
9) Political divide that has half the middle class supporting anti-middle class economic policies in exchange for support for social issues. The middle class has been split and therefore can't effectively influence our lawmakers to pass laws favoring the middle class.
Too partisan and misinformed to respond.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Blaming the education for housing cost may be a reason, however, to request that the government pick up additional educational costs is outrageous.
Preschool (ie daycare) is because of additional middle class parents both working.
That is their choice to do so; they decided to swap time with their children for the almighty dollar to support their lifestyle.

I would be curious as to what you expect or suggest parents do then so that one can stay home? speaking for my own soon to be family we would love it if my wife could stay home and care for the newborn until at least they reach the age of standard schooling however to do so would mean increasing my commute by at least two hours each way every day, footing the expense of said move, and more than likely living in a rather undesireable neighborhood, and when the time comes for school to start my child would be relegated to attending a poor school that doesn't provide much in terms of environment and or quality of education...

I think for many parents they aren't trying to support "their" lifestyle, but speaking for myself they are trying to do what is best for their children...something states like Massachusetts don't really care about as their socio economic system is starting to gear towards supporting/accomodating the retiring baby boomers....towns would rather assist in building retirement communities to house empty nesters who will eat out and spend money than fund schools and aid with lower cost housing as the former brings in a crapload of money weras the latter costs them a bundle and is much more work...i

Your idea of personal choice seems to be that the middle class should just accept the cards they have been dealt and just ride it out...if you have little money then you aren't entitled to a commute that is reasonable, or schools for your children that are safe and well funded, or a house that is comfortable...

sorry but I couldn't disagree more.

You, as a parent, are wanting to improve your lifestyle to make a better environment for your children.
That is a choice that you are making. You are willing to sacrifice the parent being home for an increased income level. that additional income allows your family to improve your lifestyle as compared to that of the previous income level.

It is not that the middle class needs to accept the cards that they are being dealt, but that they need to accept that they choose to sit down at the game table in the first place. Tjhey can also walk away from the game table. It may be a loss of face; however, they will not lose anything more.

Many years ago, the middle class was willing to sacrifice and delay large purchases until they could afford them. Now days, people want the instant gratification now and are willing to compremise their security to have it.

If all goes well, they are fine; when something happens, then they are reluctant to look in the mirror.

In almost every town there are good and bad areas. Some towns have better schooling systems than others. This is a product of the people that have lived there prior and worked to set /keep standards. Many of those people at the time were middle class and were willing to pay the cost of keeping the educational system and town quality up.

One must balance out the needs. Income can lead to a higher standard which leads to higher fixed costs. Loose the higher income and then something must give.

The government should not get into the business of trying to ensure that everyone is able to compete at the same level. the same goes with edcuation. A minimum standard should exists and it is up to the community to raise that standard as they choose to.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well I was doing OK until the CC Companies upped the minimum by 10 times and raised the interest to 24.88%

Not sure what I can do, guess I will find out how big my butt is going to get from them.

Not to scold you or any one else; but by using a CC you are borrowing money with the expectation of being able to pay it off.

If circumstances change and you can not do so (pay what you borrowed); then you are placed unwillingly in the position of bending over for the telephone pole.

In the olden days, it was the local loan shark's enforcer that created a hospital visit.

Part of what comes with getting married.

I carried zero balance and had a 750 Rating

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
What this article really shows is that inflation is underreported. Income is up 75% but basic expenses are now 75% rather than the 58% it used to be? That doesn't add up. The government is underreporting inflation to make the economy look better than it really is and to reduce SS obligations.

The so called scope of "basic" has increased:

# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Text

If people bought cars without the automatic brake systems, the crash-resistant steel frames, or the dual airbags that they lacked in the past cars would be cheaper too.

What does "the poor" have to do with the OP? Do you enjoy bashing the poor even in a thread that is clearly about the middle class? Do you think you're better than they are? To all of your stats above, I say "SO?"

By the way, in today's wacky world of e-tailing, you can get some of those items for FREE if not paid. Maybe visit the hot deals forum instead of thinking of ways to bash the poor or non CEO/corporate worshippers and you'll see. I paid a whopping $31 (that includes tax) for a VCR, a 36" (yes, 36 inch) RCA TV and a movie a few years ago. I have two DVD players that I was paid a total of $55.00 to take home. Not to mention a FREE PC, free digital camera and numerous free items. Don't give the the crap that people who have these things necessarily pay lots of cash for them. Get our of your room and dream world you little snot nosed kid.

Well, if the poor have this standard of luxuries, I wonder what the middle class's standard of luxuries is.

If we say the middle class is overspending, shouldn't stuff like this be cut down first?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
What this article really shows is that inflation is underreported. Income is up 75% but basic expenses are now 75% rather than the 58% it used to be? That doesn't add up. The government is underreporting inflation to make the economy look better than it really is and to reduce SS obligations.

The so called scope of "basic" has increased:

# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Text

If people bought cars without the automatic brake systems, the crash-resistant steel frames, or the dual airbags that they lacked in the past cars would be cheaper too.

I don't doubt the veracity of what you say but it's all besides the point. I never said that the standard of living hasn't increased. It has. Also, I doubt that the article included DVD players in the monthly expenses that it considered basic.

(Also, as an aside, the average car is cheaper in terms of % yearly income than in the past even including all the fancy features that are standard nowadays.)

What I'm really getting at is the question of how expenses could possibly be higher as a percent of income now than in the past if we truly have 75% more income now than a generation ago on an inflation adjusted basis. I bet the previous generation had their basic expenses as a % of income go down compared to their parents's generation even after including all the improvements in standard of living that would be counted as "basic".

Well, its only fair if you compare apples to apples. If the future middleclass home has 5000 square feet it's hardly the same as what we have today.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
What this article really shows is that inflation is underreported. Income is up 75% but basic expenses are now 75% rather than the 58% it used to be? That doesn't add up. The government is underreporting inflation to make the economy look better than it really is and to reduce SS obligations.

The so called scope of "basic" has increased:

# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Text

If people bought cars without the automatic brake systems, the crash-resistant steel frames, or the dual airbags that they lacked in the past cars would be cheaper too.

What does "the poor" have to do with the OP? Do you enjoy bashing the poor even in a thread that is clearly about the middle class? Do you think you're better than they are? To all of your stats above, I say "SO?"

By the way, in today's wacky world of e-tailing, you can get some of those items for FREE if not paid. Maybe visit the hot deals forum instead of thinking of ways to bash the poor or non CEO/corporate worshippers and you'll see. I paid a whopping $31 (that includes tax) for a VCR, a 36" (yes, 36 inch) RCA TV and a movie a few years ago. I have two DVD players that I was paid a total of $55.00 to take home. Not to mention a FREE PC, free digital camera and numerous free items. Don't give the the crap that people who have these things necessarily pay lots of cash for them. Get our of your room and dream world you little snot nosed kid.

Well, if the poor have this standard of luxuries, I wonder what the middle class's standard of luxuries is.

If we say the middle class is overspending, shouldn't stuff like this be cut down first?

You're fvcking hopeless. You didn't read the goddamn article nor do you really care. It's all about you, you, you and fvck all the rest. You want poor in the US to be defined the same as poor in the rest of the world. You want middle class America to be $2.00 per day middle class Indian. You're a corporate whore and are absolutely hopeless.

Don't even read the goddamn article and stay out of the goddamn thread with your trolling!

 

[Starbuck1975]

But the new family budget is notable for another reason: it is far more deeply leveraged. A generation ago, the one-income family committed about 54 percent of its pay to the basics?housing, health insurance, transportation, and taxes. That is, the one-income family spent about half its income to make the ?nut??the basic expenses that must be paid even if someone gets sick or loses a job. Today, these basic expenses, including child care so that both parents can work, consume 75 percent of the family?s combined income. With 75 percent of income earmarked for fixed expenses, today?s family has no margin for error.

The article is a bit misleading, as the increase of middle class "nut" household expenditures from 54% to 75% can still be explained by frivolous or excessive spending.

Home sizes, and their upkeep, are certainly on the rise. The homes that could support a family 50 years ago were far more humble then the homes of today. If you look at the housing and suburbs boom after WW2, those homes are the ones the current middle class is knocking down now to build their McMansions. The middle class neighborhood I grew up in was largely single level, 1500 ft^2 homes...the latest generation of homeowners are coming in, knocking down those homes, and building 4000ft^2 monsters...this is the rule, not the exception.

As for transportation, look at the cars in most middle class driveways. My parents managed to support a middle class household with two blue collar salaries and send their kids to college, and the sacrifice they made was to anchor their car purchases on used or other budget options. When I see luxury cars and oversized SUVs in most middle class driveways, it tends to give me the impression that middle class households are overspending on their transportation requirements. Look at the parade of Suburbans, Escalades, BMW, Lexus and Mercedes cars pulling into middle class neighborhood schools as parents drop their kids off...growing up, if someone's parents purchased a new Honda or Toyota it was an event.

Excessive car payments and the upkeep of oversized homes can easily account for the 20% discrepancy cited in the article.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
What this article really shows is that inflation is underreported. Income is up 75% but basic expenses are now 75% rather than the 58% it used to be? That doesn't add up. The government is underreporting inflation to make the economy look better than it really is and to reduce SS obligations.

The so called scope of "basic" has increased:

# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Text

If people bought cars without the automatic brake systems, the crash-resistant steel frames, or the dual airbags that they lacked in the past cars would be cheaper too.

What does "the poor" have to do with the OP? Do you enjoy bashing the poor even in a thread that is clearly about the middle class? Do you think you're better than they are? To all of your stats above, I say "SO?"

By the way, in today's wacky world of e-tailing, you can get some of those items for FREE if not paid. Maybe visit the hot deals forum instead of thinking of ways to bash the poor or non CEO/corporate worshippers and you'll see. I paid a whopping $31 (that includes tax) for a VCR, a 36" (yes, 36 inch) RCA TV and a movie a few years ago. I have two DVD players that I was paid a total of $55.00 to take home. Not to mention a FREE PC, free digital camera and numerous free items. Don't give the the crap that people who have these things necessarily pay lots of cash for them. Get our of your room and dream world you little snot nosed kid.

Well, if the poor have this standard of luxuries, I wonder what the middle class's standard of luxuries is.

If we say the middle class is overspending, shouldn't stuff like this be cut down first?

You're fvcking hopeless. You didn't read the goddamn article nor do you really care. It's all about you, you, you and fvck all the rest. You want poor in the US to be defined the same as poor in the rest of the world. You want middle class America to be $2.00 per day middle class Indian. You're a corporate whore and are absolutely hopeless.

Don't even read the goddamn article and stay out of the goddamn thread with your trolling!

I did read the article. Too bad it doesn't make an ounce of sense.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The article is a bit misleading, as the increase of middle class "nut" household expenditures from 54% to 75% can still be explained by frivolous or excessive spending.

Home sizes, and their upkeep, are certainly on the rise. The homes that could support a family 50 years ago were far more humble then the homes of today. If you look at the housing and suburbs boom after WW2, those homes are the ones the current middle class is knocking down now to build their McMansions. The middle class neighborhood I grew up in was largely single level, 1500 ft^2 homes...the latest generation of homeowners are coming in, knocking down those homes, and building 4000ft^2 monsters...this is the rule, not the exception.

As for transportation, look at the cars in most middle class driveways. My parents managed to support a middle class household with two blue collar salaries and send their kids to college, and the sacrifice they made was to anchor their car purchases on used or other budget options. When I see luxury cars and oversized SUVs in most middle class driveways, it tends to give me the impression that middle class households are overspending on their transportation requirements. Look at the parade of Suburbans, Escalades, BMW, Lexus and Mercedes cars pulling into middle class neighborhood schools as parents drop their kids off...growing up, if someone's parents purchased a new Honda or Toyota it was an event.

Excessive car payments and the upkeep of oversized homes can easily account for the 20% discrepancy cited in the article.

Are the middle class people to blame for the size of new construction or the developers who want to maximize profits? As a personal example when we were looking at housing we had about three options, an old rundown ranch house for close to 400K, a townhouse that was relatively new or new, slightly larger than the ranch, but generally in not so nice neighborhoods plus monthly fees for anywhere from $380K-$600K and then a Mc Mansion for about $600K and up....there were very very very few options in the $400-$500K range that were affordable smaller houses, to go less you have to buy a condo or move way out (upwards of an hour and a half commute one way)

I wouldn't say it is the homeowners pushing this but rather the developers, they make more selling either overpriced townhouses or really large houses...

Also I don't know what kind of middle class neighborhood you are lurking in but the majority around here drive either American, japanese econo with Honda and Toyota topping the list though Kia is on the rise as well as Hyundai, and a few will drive VW and or Subaru....

Only in upper middle class neighborhoods do I see a plethora of BMWs, Jags, Lexus and what not....

I think you are either talking about a minority fraction that stick out or just aren't in an area with that much middle class.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
What this article really shows is that inflation is underreported. Income is up 75% but basic expenses are now 75% rather than the 58% it used to be? That doesn't add up. The government is underreporting inflation to make the economy look better than it really is and to reduce SS obligations.

The so called scope of "basic" has increased:

# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Text

If people bought cars without the automatic brake systems, the crash-resistant steel frames, or the dual airbags that they lacked in the past cars would be cheaper too.

What does "the poor" have to do with the OP? Do you enjoy bashing the poor even in a thread that is clearly about the middle class? Do you think you're better than they are? To all of your stats above, I say "SO?"

By the way, in today's wacky world of e-tailing, you can get some of those items for FREE if not paid. Maybe visit the hot deals forum instead of thinking of ways to bash the poor or non CEO/corporate worshippers and you'll see. I paid a whopping $31 (that includes tax) for a VCR, a 36" (yes, 36 inch) RCA TV and a movie a few years ago. I have two DVD players that I was paid a total of $55.00 to take home. Not to mention a FREE PC, free digital camera and numerous free items. Don't give the the crap that people who have these things necessarily pay lots of cash for them. Get our of your room and dream world you little snot nosed kid.

Well, if the poor have this standard of luxuries, I wonder what the middle class's standard of luxuries is.

If we say the middle class is overspending, shouldn't stuff like this be cut down first?

You're fvcking hopeless. You didn't read the goddamn article nor do you really care. It's all about you, you, you and fvck all the rest. You want poor in the US to be defined the same as poor in the rest of the world. You want middle class America to be $2.00 per day middle class Indian. You're a corporate whore and are absolutely hopeless.

Don't even read the goddamn article and stay out of the goddamn thread with your trolling!

I did read the article. Too bad it doesn't make an ounce of sense.

Well OK, I'm amazed with such a low IQ you apparently have that you were able to read it enough to determine it didn't make any sense.

Thanks to all of your openiness we all know that anything you say makes no sense for a good reason.

You're not able to comprehend and process but you are able to fully hate and discriminate.

 

[Vic]

What's hurting the middle class?

Big, bloated, populist government without question. The middle class are being squeezed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I wouldn't say it is the homeowners pushing this but rather the developers, they make more selling either overpriced townhouses or really large houses...

Real estate developers cannot create demand...is it that unreasonable expectations on the part of homeowners shifted developers to meet that demand, or did real estate developers fix the market to create demand for something people did not want...from your post, it sounds like you are approaching your home purchasing decision with a reasonable mind, but many Americans do not.

I am in the same boat as you, and currently choose to rent...while I am not building equity, I am managing to save a rather nice nest egg to apply once the housing bubble bursts or at least stabilizes...patience is sometimes the most sound financial choice over instant gratification.

The same principle applies to car manufacturers...did automakers create the SUV craze, or did the bigger and bolder American consumer mentality create the demand...hard to say, and there are compelling arguments to be made either way.

I think you are either talking about a minority fraction that stick out or just aren't in an area with that much middle class.

I am talking about the NYC suburb neighborhood I grew up in, which is strongly middle class...very few white collar households save for one very exclusive area.

I will give you an example...on the street I grew up on, three new families have torn down small 1950s era homes similar to the one I grew up in and have built these towering monstrosities...now the heads of these households hardly have white collar jobs...one is a police officer, one works construction and the third is a bean counter...each of these households has at least one luxury car, although they could be leasing or bought a used car...hard to say...at best, these households bring in 100k a year with two working spouses...doing the math, I have to believe that their finances are quite stretched, but it seems a bit self induced to me.

 

[Ferocious]

Republicans are for the rich. What else is new?

Reagan was another good example of that. Give the rich a big tax break, a the middle class a small one........then give the middle class two tax increases leaving the rich in the clear.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Republicans are for the rich. What else is new?

Reagan was another good example of that. Give the rich a big tax break, a the middle class a small one........then give the middle class two tax increases leaving the rich in the clear.

Both parties are for the rich if you look closely enough. Seriously, Democrats aren't much better. Progressive income taxes plus inflation = tax increases on the middle classes. When attempts are made to adjust the tax brackets to inflation (and relieve the increasing tax burden on the middle class), the Dems block it by calling it a tax break for the rich.

 

[MrColin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
What this article really shows is that inflation is underreported.

Income is up 75% but basic expenses are now 75% rather than the 58% it used to be? That doesn't add up.

The government is underreporting inflation to make the economy look better than it really is and to reduce SS obligations.

I've been saying this for years now.

We'll find out the truth soon enough with an all out crash that will make 1929 look like a cakewalk.

Yes, in Toontown where you live it may seem that way.

In reality a crash like that of 1929 is impossible now.

Some outside force would have to cause a collapse of the entire economy.

Marked your words for later.

lol

One could make a case for the decreased danger of a run on the banks since the advent of electronic funds. However, in reality disaster is always an option.

 

[MrColin]

Progressive income taxes plus inflation = tax increases on the middle classes.

Please explain.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: MrColin

Progressive income taxes plus inflation = tax increases on the middle classes.

Please explain.

He probably is alluding to the fact that the middle class pay disproportionately more of their income in taxes compared to the other ends of the bell curve. Personally I liked Clinton hounding the rich bastards for taxes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MrColin

Progressive income taxes plus inflation = tax increases on the middle classes.

Please explain.

As inflation goes up, wages go up, but tax brackets stay the same. This means that persons with the same middle class lifestyle but at a steadily inflated income over the years find themselves shifted into higher tax brackets. Suddenly, "rich" becomes a family making $60k/yr., or a single person making $30k/yr.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MrColin

Progressive income taxes plus inflation = tax increases on the middle classes.

Please explain.

As inflation goes up, wages go up, but tax brackets stay the same. This means that persons with the same middle class lifestyle but at a steadily inflated income over the years find themselves shifted into higher tax brackets. Suddenly, "rich" becomes a family making $60k/yr., or a single person making $30k/yr.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

And I thought you didn't have a sense of humor.