QuoteHow much do average Americans make after the Great Recession? Examining the income of U.S. households. 65 percent of U.S. households live on $65,000 or less.
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-average-household-income-us-recession-income-distribution
Speaking personally, I don't know how people live on what the average HHI figure is. You can't get out of Publix for $100 anymore, gas is $3+/gal, insurance costs have risen, etc. I think to be comfortable the real amount needed is probably $80-$100k. How people squeak by on $20k/yr gross with few/no benefits/health insurance, etc., is mind boggling to me. Not fair that the reality of life must suck for so much of this country.
From the National Alliance to End Homelessness:
On Wednesday, April 21, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) released Out of Reach, an annual analysis of the cost of rental housing in the United States. Primary among the findings of the report was the level of this year's "housing wage;" the report found that a household must earn $18.44 per hour in order to afford a modest rental, two-bedroom home in the United States. This amounts to $38,360 per year - $16,310 more than the federal poverty level for a family of four. Other key findings of the report include:
• In 2010, the estimated average wage for renters in the United States is $14.44, a decline from $14.69 in 2009;
• At the federal minimum wage of $7.25, a household would have to work 102 hours a week to afford the national average fair market rent (FMR); and
• There is no county in the United States in which a full-time minimum wage worker can afford even a one-bedroom apartment at FMR.
Link to the report: http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/
That'd sure as hell motivate me to move beyond my minimum-wage job.
What's 'modest' though? That income of $38,360 a year is $3,196 and change per month. You mean to tell me that that modest two-bedroom home is that much in rent or mortgage?? I call shenanigans on that one. If it is indeed true, get a cheaper house or apartment!
If you can find an apartment for $1000 or $1200 or so a month, based on that $38K figure, that's still $1,900 (rounded down) for gas, groceries, car insurance, per month.
And Chris - normally I agree with your points on a lot of topics. However: you can budget, plan your meals, and coupon it up and get out of Publix with a week's worth of groceries (minus the two boxes of fudge rounds and the 24-case of beer) for around $80 per week. It's definitely doable. My fiancee and I do it all the time and we eat well (sometimes too well!) and are not wanting.
Our combined household income is in the less-than-$100K range too. Is it ideal? Maybe not. Is it possible and plausible? Absolutely. To say otherwise is a lie and a travesty.
Again, it's going to motivate me to at least try to better my circumstances and get to that next level. I may never own a boat, but that's fine with me too! ;)
In 1999 I read a book that forever changed the way I viewed wealth and Income. It may be a little dated for today, but I still think it is well worth the read. It is "The Millionaire Next Door".
Here is an excerpt:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html)
QuotePORTRAIT Of A MILLIONAIRE
Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?(*)
* I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.
* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.
* Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dullnormal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.
* About half of our wives do not work outside the home. The number-one occupation for those wives who do work is teacher.
* Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.
* We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million.
* On average, our total annual realized income is less than 7 percent of our wealth. In other words, we live on less than 7 percent of our wealth.
* Most of us (97 percent) are homeowners. We live in homes currently valued at an average of $320,000. About half of us have occupied the same home for more than twenty years. Thus, we have enjoyed significant increases in the value of our homes.
* Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
* We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.
* Most of our wives are planners and meticulous budgeters. In fact, only 18 percent of us disagreed with the statement "Charity begins at home." Most of us will tell you that our wives are a lot more conservative with money than we are.
* We have a "go-to-hell fund." In other words, we have accumulated enough wealth to live without working for ten or more years. Thus, those of us with a net worth of $1.6 million could live comfortably for more than twelve years. Actually, we could live longer than that, since we save at least 15 percent of our earned income.
* We have more than six and one-half times the level of wealth of our nonmillionaire neighbors, but, in our neighborhood, these nonmillionaires outnumber us better than three to one. Could it be that they have chosen to trade wealth for acquiring high-status material possessions?
* As a group, we are fairly well educated. Only about one in five are not college graduates. Many of us hold advanced degrees. Eighteen percent have master's degrees, 8 percent law degrees, 6 percent medical degrees, and 6 percent Ph.D.s.
* Only 17 percent of us or our spouses ever attended a private elementary or private high school. But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools.
* As a group, we believe that education is extremely important for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. We spend heavily for the educations of our offspring.
* About two-thirds of us work between forty-five and fifty-five hours per week.
* We are fastidious investors. On average, we invest nearly 20 percent of our household realized income each year. Most of us invest at least 15 percent. Seventy-nine percent of us have at least one account with a brokerage company. But we make our own investment decisions.
* We hold nearly 20 percent of our household's wealth in transaction securities such as publicly traded stocks and mutual funds. But we rarely sell our equity investments. We hold even more in our pension plans. On average, 21 percent of our household's wealth is in our private businesses.
* As a group, we feel that our daughters are financially handicapped in comparison to our sons. Men seem to make much more money even within the same occupational categories. That is why most of us would not hesitate to share some of our wealth with our daughters. Our sons, and men in general, have the deck of economic cards stacked in their favor. They should not need subsidies from their parents.
* What would be the ideal occupations for our sons and daughters? There are about 3.5 millionaire households like ours. Our numbers are growing much faster than the general population. Our kids should consider providing affluent people with some valuable service. Overall, our most trusted financial advisors are our accountants. Our attorneys are also very important. So we recommend accounting and law to our children. Tax advisors and estate-planning experts will be in big demand over the next fifteen years.
* I am a tightwad. That's one of the main reasons I completed a long questionnaire for a crispy $1 bill. Why else would I spend two or three hours being personally interviewed by these authors? They paid me $100, $200, or $250. Oh, they made me another offer--to donate in my name the money I earned for my interview to my favorite charity. But I told them, "I am my favorite charity."
QuoteThe current recession has stoked deep-seated fears about a declining middle class. A great collective anxiety about such a decline has been floating around for years now, and for good reason. As abundant data make clear, middle class families are being squeezed by stagnant incomes and rising expenses, and have been since the 1970s.
This week, Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel that is monitoring the TARP bailout funds given to banks, jumped into the debate on the topic. In an interview with The Washington Post, she said: "I believe that the middle class is under terrific assault."
An astute political player, she added: "And I don't want to play this as a capitalism issue." Actually, capitalism has quite a bit to do with the squeezing of the middle class -- but so do other factors, including government policy and deep structural changes in the global economy.
Here is more of Warren's statement on the subject, which provides a good sense of where middle class families stand today: "When we compare middle class families today with their parents a generation ago, we have basically flat earnings -- a fully employed male today earns on average about $800 less, adjusted for inflation, than a fully employed male earned a generation ago. The only way that families could increase their household income was to put a second earner into the workforce, and, of course that's now flattened out because there aren't any more people to put into the workforce. So you've got, effectively, flat income in this time period, with rising core expenses: housing; health insurance; child care; transportation, now that it takes two cars to get everywhere, two jobs to support; and taxes . . . families are spending a lot more on what you describe as the basic nut."
So how did we get here? Today, the top one percent now takes in 16 percent of national income, up from eight percent in 1980. The top 20 percent receive over 50 percent of all income.
This represents a major change from the glory years of the great American post-war boom, when the modern middle class came into its own. Historically, income inequality reached a peak in 1929, just before the stock market crash, and declined all through the postwar boom decades of the 1950s and '60s as progressive tax rates and restrictions on financial speculation limited the income of the upper class. Widespread prosperity in the post-war period raised incomes in the middle and bottom income brackets. But that trend reversed in the early 1970s, and income inequality has again reached the extremes last seen in 1929. By some measures, inequality is now more pronounced than ever before.
What happened?
What changed in the early 1970s to reverse the great postwar income convergence? A number of factors come into play, some more important than others. Three factors stand out: globalization, the emergence of a financial economy, and changes in government policy. Let's look at each one.
Globalization offers capital higher returns, consumers lower costs and employers what is known as "wage arbitrage" -- seeking out the highest value, lowest cost global workforce. Regardless of whether you agree with those who see globalization as the engine of wealth creation or as the force gutting middle class wages, it is capitalism writ large: capital flows to the highest returns.
Capital also flows along the path of least resistance. Contrary to received wisdom, capital doesn't flow to competition -- it seeks to bypass it or find markets which have no competitors. That is, it seeks the maximum risk/return ratio: the lowest risk, the highest return. The ideal risk/return scenario is a monopoly, in which the return can be raised even as the risk is reduced to near zero. A cartel or price-fixing scheme is near-ideal, too.
Though rarely noted, this is a longstanding trait of capitalism stretching back to Renaissance Venice. When trade became less profitable than farming due to rising competition, the Venetian elite stopped funding trade and bought farms on the Italian mainland. As a side effect, Venice ceased to be a military and trading power. But the elite remained immensely wealthy.
In other words, simply seeking out the lowest-risk, highest return can have pernicious consequences -- not just for the citizenry but for the nation.
Another important change in the early 1970s was the increasing flow of capital into the FIRE economy (finance, insurance and real estate), eschewing real-world investments as comparatively unprofitable. Some of this was due to globalization -- steel, for instance, could be produced cheaper in East Asia than in America -- but policies and regulations influenced this capital flow. For example, while the environmental regulations enacted in the U.S. in the 1970s have been a major success in terms of cleaning up the air, land and water we all share, in some cases they raised costs to the point that moving production overseas made financial sense.
The 1970s also saw the first beginnings of a loosening of financial regulations and the growth of credit and financial "innovations," such as securitization and derivatives. Capital increasingly fled real production for finance, which became the key profit-center of corporate America. GM didn't make money manufacturing autos; they made money selling loans to buy their cars. General Electric made more with its GECC finance arm than it did selling light bulbs and generators.
As a result, where finance and banking once generated a mere six percent of total U.S. corporate profits, by the height of the housing bubble in 2006 it was churning out 45 percent of all corporate profits. Indeed, U.S. "financial services and innovations" were the most heralded exports of the nation.
The pernicious result of this rising reliance on financial innovations and real estate was the growing appeal of speculation over the production of goods and services. To mention but one example: the average compensation of the top 10 hedge fund managers in the 2004-6 era was $600 million each. That is not a misprint: $600 million each.
Government policies actually encouraged this sort of risky speculation over actually investing in productive assets. To name but one example: hedge funds were allowed to report much of their speculative income as long-term capital gains, lowering their tax rate to 15 percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate paid by manufacturers of washing machines (for example) was 35 percent. Why invest in jobs, goods and services when playing with leverage and "innovations" was essentially rewarded by government policy?
Where Bill Gates, Michael Dell and Steve Jobs had built billion-dollar companies and fortunes developing real products for the real world, the fortunes made in the last decade resulted in large part from speculation and financial churn. Nothing was produced except an ephemeral kind of wealth that vanished in the meltdown of the very risk-laden "financial innovations" which were heavily touted as "safe" enough for the middle class to join in.
And join in we did, by the tens of millions. Having watched bigshot financiers speculate their way to hundreds of millions of dollars via leverage, the middle class household -- squeezed by flat wages and rising costs -- jumped into the housing and credit bubble with both feet. Millions extracted equity to spend on an upper-middle class lifestyle, while millions more speculated with extreme leverage (no or low down payments) to buy spec houses to flip for quick profits.
Borrowing capital on the cheap to invest in high returns is capitalistic to the core, and the result was the 1990s dot-com stock bubble (fueled by margin borrowing) and the 2000s housing bubble (fueled by low mortgage rates and minimal down payments). But we should note it was government policy which kept interest rates at historically unprecedented low levels.
Alas, the risks -- presented as low in each case -- turned out to be high, and each easy-credit-fueled bubble imploded, wiping out trillions of dollars in middle class wealth. The housing bubble bursting has been far more devastating to middle class wealth than the dot-com implosion of Internet stocks, for the reason that the house has long been the major store of middle class household wealth, not the 401K or stock trading account.
Studies have shown that the top 10 percent of American households own three fourths of all stocks and bonds; most middle class stock and bond holdings are modest. Thus the meltdown of the NASDAQ bubble did not do irreparable damage to middle class household wealth. But the bursting of the housing bubble did do irreparable damage to many household balance sheets. Seduced by cheap, easy credit, middle class households filled the gap between their flat wages and rising bills with borrowed money. While housing was rising, this debt could be offset with rising equity. But once housing popped, then assets receded, leaving only the debt.
Something else changed in the early 1970s: the U.S. government launched a long-term policy of devaluing the dollar. While this is often referred to as "inflation," it is in essence a devaluation of the U.S. dollar. It now takes $486 to equal $100 in 1973. A dollar bought over 300 Japanese yen in 1973; now it buys about 90 yen. The net result of this stealth depreciation of the dollar is that purchasing power has declined even as nominal wages and wealth have increased.
While "inflation" has risen almost five-fold, the cost of many essentials has risen much more than that. Chief among these is health care, which has skyrocketed to 16 percent of the entire GDP. Are we two times healthier than we were a few decades ago? That is hard to pin down, but we certainly pay two times more for medical care, adjusted for inflation.
This tremendous rise in health care costs acts as a hidden tax on the entire U.S. economy, making the nation less competitive and diverting discretionary household income to the health care complex. What's often lost in the current health care debate is that very few are willing to tackle the elephant in the room: skyrocketing costs. Merely shifting the burden from employers to taxpayers is accomplishing very little in the overall picture.
Where do we go from here?
The story of the middle class squeeze is complex, but its effects are not hard to see. Despite an increase in national wealth over the last 40 years, the wages and wealth of most of the U.S. population are flat at best. Owners of capital and the professional class, who make up the top five percent (or less), are the only ones who received the benefits of economic growth over the last few decades.
While some observers point to middle class ownership of stocks and bonds as evidence that this trend benefits the middle class as well as the wealthy, they fail to note that middle class ownership of stocks and bonds is a mile wide but an inch deep. The vast majority of households own less than $10,000 in stocks or bonds, including IRAs.
During the recent speculative mania, elite and middle class interests seem to converge, as everyone appeared to benefit from the real estate bubble except the poor. But this convergence was illusory; while the financial elites and government benefited (via stupendous capital gains taxes), the private-sector middle class was in essence the bag-holder. When the newfound "wealth" in housing and stock market gains vanished, it was middle class wealth which was destroyed en masse.
Both capitalism and government policy have brought the nation to its present financial situation. To blame one and hold the other blameless is missing a lot of history. And just as each contributed to the current recession, so each must be part of the solution.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/middle-class-squeeze-the-deep-roots-of-an-economic-and-social-t/19189842/?icid=sphere_copyright
We made it in NY on less than 2,500 a month for over a year, a family of five mind you. Everyone was fed, rent and utilities paid on time every month. We just didn't have anything extra and there was not room for savings or error, in fact saving at that point would have been an error because something like the rent would have had to have been sacrificed.
Quote from: JC on April 27, 2010, 03:02:52 PM
We made it in NY on less than 2,500 a month for over a year, a family of five mind you. Everyone was fed, rent and utilities paid on time every month. We just didn't have anything extra and there was not room for savings or error, in fact saving at that point would have been an error because something like the rent would have had to have been sacrificed.
Wow, that is a laudable feat. I consider myself frugal, but you could probably teach me a thing or two.
It's not always what you make, it's usually what you spend.
Quote from: JagFan07 on April 27, 2010, 03:16:32 PM
Quote from: JC on April 27, 2010, 03:02:52 PM
We made it in NY on less than 2,500 a month for over a year, a family of five mind you. Everyone was fed, rent and utilities paid on time every month. We just didn't have anything extra and there was not room for savings or error, in fact saving at that point would have been an error because something like the rent would have had to have been sacrificed.
Wow, that is a laudable feat. I consider myself frugal, but you could probably teach me a thing or two.
It's not always what you make, it's usually what you spend.
"make due" takes on a whole new meaning :)
We didn't live in the city mind you but rent still wasn't cheap.
All of us could do with much less than we have now. Let's just hope we don't find out... how well.
QuoteMiddle-skills jobs have lost share in the employment pool in the last three decades, a trend of labor-market "polarization" reinforced by the recession, according to a report released Friday.
"Employment losses during the recent recession were far more severe in middle-skill white- and blue-collar jobs than in either high-skill, white-collar jobs or in low-skill service occupations," according to the report by economist David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that was presented at a Washington conference about the future of American Jobs.
The four middle-skill occupations -- sales, office and administrative workers, production workers and operators -- accounted for 57.3% employment in 1979. That portion fell to 48.6% in 2007, and declined to 45.7% in 2009, according to the report.
Male workers have been particularly hard hit, as their educational attainment has slowed and labor force participation declined, according to Autor.
"Perhaps most alarmingly, males as a group have adapted comparatively poorly to the changing labor market," Autor wrote. "For males without a four-year college degree, wages have stagnated or fallen over three decades. And as these males have moved out of middle-skill blue-collar jobs, they have generally moved downward in the occupational skill and earnings distribution."
The employment and earnings of less-educated males have been particularly harmed by fewer middle-skill, blue-collar jobs in manufacturing, according to the report.
"The job opportunities available to males displaced from manufacturing jobs, particularly those displaced at midcareer, are likely to be primarily found in lower-paying service occupations," Autor wrote.
Why have middle-skilled jobs declined? Changes in technology, international trade, and the off-shoring of jobs all play a part.
The report also noted a historic high for the return to skills. In 2009 the hourly wage of the typical college graduate was 1.95 times the hourly wage of the typical high school graduate, up from 1.5 times in 1963. All of the gain took place after 1980.
"This simple comparison of the wage gap between college and high school graduates probably understates significantly the real growth in compensation for college graduates relative to high school graduates in recent decades," according to the report. "College graduates work more hours per week and more weeks per year than high school graduates, spend less time unemployed, and receive a disproportionate share of nonwage fringe benefits, including sick and vacation pay, employer-paid health insurance, pension contributions, and safe and pleasant working conditions."
Copyrighted, MarketWatch. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of MarketWatch content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of MarketWatch. MarketWatch shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/109424/labor-force-polarized-as-middle-skill-jobs-disappear-report?mod=career-worklife_balance&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this statement "(minus the two boxes of fudge rounds and the 24-case of beer)". I'm guessing I would have to do away with my bourbon and rum as well, now that is just crazy talk. Ok, I know how to bake cookies and brew beer, can anyone assist me in making a still?
My point was (poorly presented,for which I apologize) that things like fudge rounds and beer (ok, maybe not so much the beer, but...) are non-essentials. You don't need junk food to survive. Stuff like that is a luxury, not a necessity.
Budget and spend the money on other things like veggies, fruits, and other more nutritious food - the staples, if you will. It's still pretty easy to do that for under $100 a week from even Publix, which I think was Chris' point.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 27, 2010, 12:10:58 PM
Speaking personally, I don't know how people live on what the average HHI figure is. You can't get out of Publix for $100 anymore, gas is $3+/gal, insurance costs have risen, etc. I think to be comfortable the real amount needed is probably $80-$100k. How people squeak by on $20k/yr gross with few/no benefits/health insurance, etc., is mind boggling to me. Not fair that the reality of life must suck for so much of this country.
Gee,you need to get your math straight...maybe that's why you cant live on anything less then 80K.
Average person can live nicely around 30K unless you are spoiled and need to have ipad,$150 Nikes and eat out all the time..then good luck.
Many people in other countries survive on 1/100 of that 30,000 so for an American to complain is just being spoiled.
$80K-$100K is good solid upper middle class income - big house, two new cars, kids to college with their own cars.
On the equivalent of today's $30-$40,( about $7K-$9K then) my in-laws in the '40's, '50's and '60's had a modest house, sent three daughters to state colleges, took camping vacations every year, bought used cars and had a rich life in spite of no luxuries that we take for granted now. They were children of the Depression themselves and knew how to be comfortable on little.
Three great, well educated kids too. I've been married to the eldest for over 40 years and she is still careful with the budget. (Thanks, honey!)
Bos is right. There are too many people out there who are measuring their lives by what they don't have rather than what they do have.
In the last 6 months my salary has gone from about $20k (net) to a bit over $40k. I don't think I have changed my lifestyle at all, I am now just putting more into investments saving, and paying for better health insurance, car insurance etc. I think I was actually spending more at my lesser income level, just because I had so little after necessities that it wasn't worth saving to me. You can still go out to dinner and go to the bars on $20k, just not Ruth's Chris and be prepared to drink PBR and Natty.
One could have survive on the lower salary, but that is no way to live. I still don't think I would be able to support another person on my current wage. I think 70-80k per household is the minimum needed to be able to own a home and plan for retirement. People could do it for less, but some point of your life would be sacrificed (retirement or present day).
I can get out of Publix for $65, every other week (Santitas $2 chips, tortillas, ground chuck, veggies, chicken breasts, milk, rice, toiletries, beer).
I know there is a lot of good looking girls at Publix,but did you guys consider shopping at let's say Walmart or simillar?
Do it early in morning before ugly ones get in.
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 04, 2010, 01:44:19 PM
$80K-$100K is good solid upper middle class income - big house, two new cars, kids to college with their own cars.
It really depends on where you live. Jacksonville, probably so. San Francisco, not so much.
QuoteThere are too many people out there who are measuring their lives by what they don't have rather than what they do have.
Can't argue with that.
Quote from: Bostech on May 04, 2010, 02:29:00 PM
I know there is a lot of good looking girls at Publix,but did you guys consider shopping at let's say Walmart or simillar?
Do it early in morning before ugly ones get in.
You realize that Wal Mart is a serious part of the problem dont you?
First off you need to know that 3 or even 4 classes isn't enough to really describe what you are. I have took Sociology and Economics and Social and Economic Classes by definition fall under 6 classes.
These are the TYPICAL requirements to be in certain classes.
Capitalist: $1,000,000+ Annual Salary, usually pared with postgrad degree from an Prestigious University, BA(S), MA(S), Ph.D.
Upper Middle: $125,000+, Grad and sometimes Postgrad degree, BA(S), MA(S).
Lower Middle: ~$60,000, High School GED, AA(S), BA(S)
Working: ~$35,000, High School GED
Working Poor: ~$17,000, Possibly having a High School GED
Underclass: Under $10,000, Little to some High School, typically homeless and/or ultra poor.
Education is majorly the largest decider when it comes to salary and social class. Though some people, like Sports Players and Singers dont fall into this scale, but generally this is what you have to have. And this is a University certified scale, I am not just coming up with this on my own. In Sociology I did have to come up with my own buy I am not posting that one.
And to touch up the point of other parts of the country having higher or lower median incomes. The highest county in the US by median household income is Loudoun County, Virginia, with a median income of $110,000.
Holy Smokes! This is revolutionary! The amount earned seems to be directly tied to the degree in which you are educated?? So... dropping out of high school or barely graduating H.S. virtually assures a person a lifetime of poverty? Whoa... for awhile there I thought it was unfair taxes, unfair labor practices, and "sending jobs overseas".
Keep in mind the income ranges shown above are for a family of 4
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 05, 2010, 07:19:38 AM
Holy Smokes! This is revolutionary! The amount earned seems to be directly tied to the degree in which you are educated?? So... dropping out of high school or barely graduating H.S. virtually assures a person a lifetime of poverty? Whoa... for awhile there I thought it was unfair taxes, unfair labor practices, and "sending jobs overseas".
Pow! That one goes right out of the ballpark! LOL!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 05, 2010, 07:19:38 AM
Holy Smokes! This is revolutionary! The amount earned seems to be directly tied to the degree in which you are educated?? So... dropping out of high school or barely graduating H.S. virtually assures a person a lifetime of poverty? Whoa... for awhile there I thought it was unfair taxes, unfair labor practices, and "sending jobs overseas".
I would not say its directly tied, but on a national scale of families of four. The amount of education of people at certain levels does vary. However, you could vary well of only completed High School and become an millionare, but there would be 10-15 classes if we were to contain every kind of person. Heck, there should be the "jock" class then, and the "Lucky Bastard Class" haha
Sure there are exceptions... plenty of folks out there with MBA's that aren't making loads of cash and there are more than a few without degrees in higher education that are millionaires...(Bill Gates?) But for most... there is a direct correlation. Interestingly... females are replacing males as majorities at major universities...
Quote from: Mattius92 on May 04, 2010, 06:07:18 PM
Capitalist: $1,000,000+ Annual Salary, usually pared with postgrad degree from an Prestigious University, BA(S), MA(S), Ph.D.
I suspect a great many of this group have a degree from a prestigious institution
because they are filthy rich, not vice versa.
Actually the largest help anyone can have to getting on top is how powerful their/your families are/is. Its has been proven that your family plays the biggest role on what your success will be in life. However there is always exceptions.
Kinda explains why rich tend to always stay rich. Poor usually tend to stay poor.
Even if they break out of the poor cycle, usually when they get the money they have problems figuring out how to properly spend it, mainly because they have never had any body tell them how they are supposed to use the extra money. So in the end they usually go back to where they were.
Typically for every generation in your family, you will either stay in the class your were born in, or go up one level. The chances of someone shooting to the top are very rare.
Quote from: Mattius92 on May 05, 2010, 12:54:56 PM
Actually the largest help anyone can have to getting on top is how powerful their/your families are/is. Its has been proven that your family plays the biggest role on what your success will be in life. However there is always exceptions.
Kinda explains why rich tend to always stay rich. Poor usually tend to stay poor.
Even if they break out of the poor cycle, usually when they get the money they have problems figuring out how to properly spend it, mainly because they have never had any body tell them how they are supposed to use the extra money. So in the end they usually go back to where they were.
Typically for every generation in your family, you will either stay in the class your were born in, or go up one level. The chances of someone shooting to the top are very rare.
Actually that is a falsehood. 80% of millionaires are first generation.
And...
Quote...According to IRS tax data, 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom fifth in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile, and often to the top quintile, by 1988....
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4217 (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4217)
Well then I must be mistaken there, but having a wealthy family has to help you, there is no doubt about that.
Quote from: JagFan07 on May 05, 2010, 01:47:08 PM
Actually that is a falsehood. 80% of millionaires are first generation.
Saying "80% of millionaires are first generation" does not disprove the statement that
Quote...the largest help anyone can have to getting on top is how powerful their/your families are/is. Its has been proven that your family plays the biggest role on what your success will be in life.
"Different groups of Americans have different levels of opportunity. Those born to the middle class have about an equal chance of moving up or down the income ladder, according to the Economic Mobility Project. The children of the rich and poor, meanwhile, are less mobile than the middle class’s. More than 40% of those Americans born in the bottom quintile remain stuck there as adults."
http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15908469
Furthermore, a new report from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) finds that social mobility between generations is dramatically lower in the U.S. than in many other developed countries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html
True, I probably should not have used "falsehood". I agree that education is the number one answer, as your economist article points out:
QuoteFamily background is not insurmountable, explain Isabel Sawhill and Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution. In particular, earning a degree and marrying before having children can help someone climb to a higher rung. However, family background influences the likelihood of education and marriage (see article).
QuoteTypically for every generation in your family, you will either stay in the class your were born in, or go up one level. The chances of someone shooting to the top are very rare.
There is the saying, "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations in America." It is easy to go down a level too.
First generation: Immigrant family. Mother and father start by working for someone else in a ethnic restaurant. Work insane hours, save every penny and push kids to be tops in school. Take saved money and open own restaurant, work insane hours, save every penny, push kids to be tops in school and work in family restaurant on few off hours. Kids do super well in school and win scholarships to state schools. Graduate with honors and go to medical school and law school. They go into practice and get very rich. Have kids. Want to make sure kids don't have terrible hard childhood that they had. Give them every whim. Kids do terrible in school, run around with losers, can't make it in college and become restaurant workers, roofers and house painters.
Eddie Farah's father ran a corner grocery store in North Jacksonville. Eddie employs over 90 lawyers in offices in two states. Hope he has held his kids to the same ethic his father instilled in him. There are lots and lots of people just like him in Jacksonville.
Going down in class is easy, but unless you are lazy or very unfortunate, you shouldn't fall down in class. In Eddie's case, he went up in class. Its called intergenerational mobility.
I can say that in the late 20th century and the 21st century has seen a lot of people go from rags to riches off the growing increase of technology and the internet. Heck Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, went from a underclass college student to a billionaire in just over 5 years.
I don't know what you consider "underclass", but Zuckerberg attended Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard University.
Quote from: finehoe on May 05, 2010, 02:57:15 PM
I don't know what you consider "underclass", but Zuckerberg attended Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard University.
Wasnt FB started as a way for Harvard men to meet women?
sex sells
Quote from: finehoe on May 05, 2010, 02:57:15 PM
I don't know what you consider "underclass", but Zuckerberg attended Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard University.
Well we would need to know how rich his family was, but most college students dont have any money. You can probably make more money staying out of college, till well the college student graduates, and then he will eventually make more money then the person who stayed out.
All I can say, is Mark was not a billionaire in college.
Quote from: finehoe on May 05, 2010, 02:57:15 PM
I don't know what you consider "underclass", but Zuckerberg attended Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard University.
Mattius, I was in favor of your argument until you started defending against this point.
If you're from a rich family, you don't just lose all that when you go to college. Also, there are far fewer scholarships for high schools, so Exeter was more than likely not free. Harvard does not hand out many scholarships compared to similar universities, because they don't need to, so it is safe to assume that Zuckerberg's family was at least well off.
Having just graduated from UF, I can tell you there is a whole spectrum of wealth among college students.
Quote from: Mattius92 on May 05, 2010, 03:17:15 PM
All I can say, is Mark was not a billionaire in college.
Probably not, but if his parents could afford to send him to Exeter, he is a child of privilege and to say he went from "rags to riches" is patently untrue. I'm sure he fits into the "fewer than 20 percent that inherited their wealth" (since his parents are still alive) from JagFan's article too, but does anyone seriously think he would have been equally as likely to be were he is today if he had been born in the ghetto?
Quote from: finehoe on May 05, 2010, 03:44:31 PM
Quote from: Mattius92 on May 05, 2010, 03:17:15 PM
All I can say, is Mark was not a billionaire in college.
Probably not, but if his parents could afford to send him to Exeter, he is a child of privilege and to say he went from "rags to riches" is patently untrue. I'm sure he fits into the "fewer than 20 percent that inherited their wealth" (since his parents are still alive) from JagFan's article too, but does anyone seriously think he would have been equally as likely to be were he is today if he had been born in the ghetto?
Didnt you see the movie with Will Smith and he is homeless? I think hey called it the pursuit of money or something or other.
Mark I guess wasnt the best rags to riches story, but I was just trying to point out that the increasing amount of millionaires nowadays can have a lot to do with us going into the information age. That and inflation.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/S98gzE14n1I/AAAAAAAAMoA/KT7Xy6X-U_U/s1600/post-4672-1272892829.jpg)
CEOs make on average 458 times more money then the workers. Huge difference there.
I can say CEOs play important roles, but you really dont need 458 times more then your workers.
The CEO's of Lehman Brothers, Bear-Sterns, Goldman-Sachs, etc. didn't even UNDERSTAND what was going on in their businesses much less have anything to do with managing them.
Just finished reading "The Big Short" about the fancy debt instruments that were made from sub-prime mortgages and how they brought down the big investment banks. Made me want to scream. Moody's and Standard & Poors, supposedly the watchdog rating agencies, didn't understand them either.
All those people walked away with tens of millions of dollars for screwing up. They ought to be sued of every asset and every penny they have for shear incompetence and negligence.
Middle class is anyone who is about to file for foreclosure, or so it seems. Bankruptcies in Jax are already at more than 3,200 so far this year. Last year this time, it was only 900, and these are only the ones reported.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 05, 2010, 07:35:18 PM
Middle class is anyone who is about to file for foreclosure, or so it seems. Bankruptcies in Jax are already at more than 3,200 so far this year. Last year this time, it was only 900, and these are only the ones reported.
With that said, then I guess I am above middle class, or maybe below...
I hope our economy starts to skyrocket again.
Middle class is any family who still has one parent working. Two wage earners in the household and you are upper middle. None and you are poor.
And there are still a lot of families with two high salary professionals working who are still one missed paycheck away from financial disaster. There have been plenty of foreclosures in Queen's Harbor and Deerwood.
QuoteAnd there are still a lot of families with two high salary professionals working who are still one missed paycheck away from financial disaster. There have been plenty of foreclosures in Queen's Harbor and Deerwood.
If this is the case it sounds to me like their problem is not income (plenty of that), but out-go. Clearly they are living higher than their means... or barely within their means with with no recourse but financial disaster because they spent too much... failed to save, etc. Sounds like a classic case of lack of personal responsibility...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 06, 2010, 12:34:20 PM
QuoteSounds like a classic case of lack of personal responsibility...
...or maybe they just got sick.
QuoteIllness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies
...most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.
Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0nAU8vVAo
Quote from: sheclown on May 06, 2010, 06:42:17 AM
Middle class is any family who still has one parent working. Two wage earners in the household and you are upper middle. None and you are poor.
Couldnt say that is true. One parent could very well make over $125,000, I know a few myself. On the flip side you could have two parents on $30-40K salaries and not be considered Upper Middle. I would not base class on the amount of workers in your family.
I think she was making a joke or sorts by over simplifying not trying to make a sociologically precise definition.
Old over-simplifying joke: If one person calls you a horse, laugh at them. If two people call you a horse, start to worry. If three people call you a horse, better go buy a saddle for yourself.