|
The U.S. government publishes statistics showing the upper and lower household income limits by quintile and for the top 5%. I always go by that. Bottom 20% = Poor, 20-40% = lower middle class, 40-60% = middle class, 60-80% = upper middle class, above 80% = upper class, top 5% = rich. I think that's pretty reasonable. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/ So for the latest year available, 2012: Poor = Less than $28,000 Lower Middle Class = $28,000 - $50,000 Middle Class = $50,000 - $77,000 Upper Middle Class = $77,000 - $119,000 Upper Class = $120,000 and up Rich/5%er = $210,000 and up Honestly, I think Census should keep tracking the 5% level just to enable comparisons over tome since they've already been tracking it, but I think 1% really is more meaningful to measure. I'd like to see them add it.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:The FL Democratic party blew that election badly by nominating Alex Sink to run against Scott in 2010. Scott painted her as a Bank of America fat-cat/crony and the FL Dems weren't able to message that Scott was the most notorious Medicare fraudster in history. People keep saying he's a Medicare fraud so it must be true, but what's the story on that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
sullat posted:People keep saying he's a Medicare fraud so it must be true, but what's the story on that? http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2010/06/rick-scotts-role-in-columbiahca-scandal.html http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/mar/03/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-rick-scott-oversaw-largest-medicare-fra/
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:The U.S. government publishes statistics showing the upper and lower household income limits by quintile and for the top 5%. I always go by that. Bottom 20% = Poor, 20-40% = lower middle class, 40-60% = middle class, 60-80% = upper middle class, above 80% = upper class, top 5% = rich. I think that's pretty reasonable. That's a fair way to break it down, although (as many others have pointed out) there's something to be said for acknowledging cost-of-living as well (maybe by breaking down those quintiles by metro-area/state rather than nationwide), since class is usually associated with a lifestyle, which may cost more or less depending on the location. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I think having kids really changes the equation on this. This. I was a rich single man at $26,000 a year. Driving around in a Corvette wearing a poo poo eating grin. Now I'm married with one 2 year old child, our household income is $46,000, and HOLY poo poo THE CONSTANT FINANCIAL STRESS ARRGHGHGHG. My wife isn't politically obsessed like I am but is also a pretty reliable Republican voter. To try and make sure she's a filthy bleeding heart socialist RINO like me, I remind her sometimes that there's a light at the end of the tunnel we have (vastly increased income post-residency, probably very close to that top 5% level) and that for most people in our income situation there is none. They will always be lower middle class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Jesus, 9k more comments since I last looked at that. If you look he has a more recent post where he promises a full repeal of Obamacare, despite all of those people telling him they like it. Come on, it's not as if Ted Cruz is unaware that the ACA will help people (not as much as it could, single-payer, can of worms, etc etc). He's just ideologically opposed to it because it helps give people a "privilege" they didn't "earn."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Justus posted:I read poo poo like this, and I thank my lucky stars I was raised in family that imparted useful frugality philosophy and skills. It's difficult for me to imagine "barely treading water" with a $71k household income. I understand it's not much for dual income, but with a decently non-hedonic lifestyle, that should be plenty to fund a family of four pretty comfortably. Location isn't the only thing you are neglecting to take into account. Dual earners need daycare too and that stuff is ludicrously expensive. There is a reason universal child care is part of the feminist platform. Oh and college debt x2. McAlister fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:... That's a little more than moving states. MA is not 7x as expensive as Tennessee From rural TN to the inner suburbs of Boston? yes, yes it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:From rural TN to the inner suburbs of Boston? yes, yes it is. So Apples to Oranges then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:06
|
|
Jarmak posted:From rural TN to the inner suburbs of Boston? yes, yes it is. No it's really not
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:This. I was a rich single man at $26,000 a year. Driving around in a Corvette wearing a poo poo eating grin. Now I'm married with one 2 year old child, our household income is $46,000, and HOLY poo poo THE CONSTANT FINANCIAL STRESS ARRGHGHGHG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Yeah, you continue to baffle me. Why the gently caress do you vote the way you do? Is it literally just guns? The GOP is really good, honest. They didn't mean to hit me, and they're going to get their act together. One day their actions will match their words and they'll be the party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom. You'll see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:The GOP is really good, honest. They didn't mean to hit me, and they're going to get their act together. One day their actions will match their words and they'll be the party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom. You'll see. Don't worry dear, all your political ideals went to live on a big farm in the country where there's lots of room to run and play.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:The GOP is really good, honest. They didn't mean to hit me, and they're going to get their act together. One day their actions will match their words and they'll be the party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom. You'll see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:The GOP is really good, honest. They didn't mean to hit me, and they're going to get their act together. One day their actions will match their words and they'll be the party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom. You'll see. Ok, you're saying this... God drat this is just so sad, I figured you must have been at least close to the top tax bracket.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So Apples to Oranges then. How the gently caress is that apples to oranges?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:How the gently caress is that apples to oranges? In terms of living cost to living cost, it's not. I think the issue was that you initially made the comparison as TN vs. MA, full stop, when your move also was rural to urban.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:In terms of living cost to living cost, it's not. I think the issue was that you initially made the comparison as TN vs. MA, full stop, when your move also was rural to urban. Thats irrelevant to the point I was making, which was N dollars can be a totally different quality of life based on where you're living because of cost of living changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:That's a fair way to break it down, although (as many others have pointed out) there's something to be said for acknowledging cost-of-living as well (maybe by breaking down those quintiles by metro-area/state rather than nationwide), since class is usually associated with a lifestyle, which may cost more or less depending on the location. Cost of living that would severely change the ranking is localized in highly trendy areas within those places. And if you're only middle income within the hyper-rich enclave you're in, that still means you're wealthy, your neighbors are just wealthier. There's a census tract next to Central Park in Manhattan where the median household income is $228,750. The census tract just uptown of it is $98,669. The tract just uptown of that is $24,286 and the one uptown of that is $31,466. So within a 21 street block by 2 avenue block patch of Manhattan, making $100,000 can make you under half of median, a bit over median, or 3-4x median - would you really argue that your middle class/upper class status changes with that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:48
|
|
Jarmak posted:Thats irrelevant to the point I was making, which was N dollars can be a totally different quality of life based on where you're living because of cost of living changes. That's fine, but MA is not seven times as expensive as TN. If you want to talk about downtown boston versus bumfuck nowhere, that's fine. But there's no reason to go crazy making insane claims. Loving the "but but 90k in household income isn't that much" liberals are the best
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:That's fine, but MA is not seven times as expensive as TN. If you want to talk about downtown boston versus bumfuck nowhere, that's fine. But there's no reason to go crazy making insane claims. Yeah, compare rural TN with rural MA if you want a fair comparison, or urban TN to urban MA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:That's fine, but MA is not seven times as expensive as TN. If you want to talk about downtown boston versus bumfuck nowhere, that's fine. But there's no reason to go crazy making insane claims. Thats literally my old rent as of Feb 2012 in TNx12 versus my rent as of 1 Jun in MAx12. Who said 90k isn't that much? edit: fair comparison of what? Jarmak fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:08
|
|
Jarmak posted:Thats literally my old rent as of Feb 2012 in TNx12 versus my rent as of 1 Jun in MAx12. where in MA now where in TN do you get it yet? Jarmak posted:Who said 90k isn't that much? pages of "but cost of living"
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Honestly I think Thomas and Alito are both bigger problems than Scalia. Scalia catches a lot of heat for being a giant dick, but at least he thinks out his arguments. Meanwhile Thomas' jurisprudence hasn't evolved since the gilded age and Alito is one of the biggest partisan shills the court has ever seen. On the plus side, nobody will ever agree with anything Thomas writes. The other justices might vote with him, sure, but he'll always have a separate concurrence discussing how banning company scrip is unconstitutional or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, compare rural TN with rural MA if you want a fair comparison, or urban TN to urban MA. Boston's cost of living is about 60% higher than Nashville's and employers pay about 15% more for equivalent jobs. So your 50k Nashville family could expect to make 57.5k if they moved to Boston! Hurray! Too bad they'd need to make 80k to maintain an equivalent lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Boston's cost of living is about 60% higher than Nashville's and employers pay about 15% more for equivalent jobs. Yeah but you don't need to live in Boston to work in Boston. It's not really a mystery that suburbs exist. Not to mention that Boston is one of those cases where the actual city is really quite a small, and there's a major disproportion between housing available and employees who show up on a weekday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:where in MA Sorry that superfluous letters in my statement caused your autism to flair up or something, here I rewrote it in the hope it will be more on your reading level: Keep in mind location makes a big difference, moving from one part of the country to another changed my yearly rent bill from $5,400 to $34,800 for a smaller place. So for example $50k family income might be a comfortable life for someone in some parts of the country but paycheck to paycheck in another down with slavery posted:
So no one
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Yeah but you don't need to live in Boston to work in Boston. It's not really a mystery that suburbs exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:23
|
|
Jarmak posted:Keep in mind location makes a big difference, moving from one part of the country to another changed my yearly rent bill from $5,400 to $34,800 for a smaller place. Again, I call bullshit. What changed your rent bill was not moving places in the country, but going from a rural to an urban environment. There are more factors to cost of living than what state it exists in, and leaving out that information makes your claims look crazy. But I'd love to see what you were paying $450/mo for that $2900/mo isn't getting you in MA.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
loquacius posted:-- a person who does not know how expensive the Boston suburbs are You don't have to live in the most expensive ones either, bub. You're doing that thing people do with NYC, where they act as if uber trendy Manhattan neighborhoods and the Towns are the only viable places for a job in Manhattan, eliding the tons of much cheaper places in and outside the city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:You don't have to live in the most expensive ones either, bub. You're doing that thing people do with NYC, where they act as if uber trendy Manhattan neighborhoods and the Towns are the only viable places for a job in Manhattan, eliding the tons of much cheaper places in and outside the city. So how much cheaper would it be for someone in Nashville to live forty five minutes outside of the city and commute to work instead of living in the trendy neighborhoods in the city near their job? Apples to apples only works as a criticism if you actually compare apples to apples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So how much cheaper would it be for someone in Nashville to live forty five minutes outside of the city and commute to work instead of living in the trendy neighborhoods in the city near their job? What is the price range for suburbs in Boston?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Basically I'm hobbled in this argument because I don't really understand what the political point is that people are trying to make by vehemently denying that some areas are more expensive to live in than others 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Congrats on moving out of the dilapidated trailer you had in Tennessee and buying a nice, but smaller, place in Boston? e: If you're paying 2900 a month for a place in Boston it had better be top notch or you're a huge sucker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:35
|
|
loquacius posted:Basically I'm hobbled in this argument because I don't really understand what the political point is that people are trying to make by vehemently denying that some areas are more expensive to live in than others I'm not saying areas don't have different costs of living, I'm saying there isn't a place in the US that's seven times more expensive than another place based on location alone. Beyond that, I would argue that even if you live in NYC, $90k of household income still makes you pretty loving rich. What do you think the people flipping burgers in NYC are making? It's just a shame that so called "liberals" will start to defend their own economic positions when confronted with the fact that maybe, just maybe, $80k is a lot of money no matter where you live and complaining about being pushed out of the middle class is some first world bullshit while children go hungry in this country. All these "BUT BUT CAN YOU IMAGINE IF YOU MADE 100k IN NYC?!?! ITS NOT THAT MUCH" is just a ridiculous attempt by those who are well off to identify with "the little guy" while their chosen politician (BARACK THE ISLAMIC SHOCK) continues to do nothing about income inequality. 
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:That's fine, but MA is not seven times as expensive as TN. If you want to talk about downtown boston versus bumfuck nowhere, that's fine. But there's no reason to go crazy making insane claims. My wife and I are considered "rich" by the government and no, not it's not that much. We also live in Orange County so our housing costs alone are above 2k a month so even if that 90K income was after taxes that would only leave us 2k a month for food, cars, school loans, utilities, etc., and we don't even have kids. That being said, I have and will continue to vote to increase my taxes because everyone always seems to forget the line about "general welfare" being about not letting families starve, go to failing schools, or getting bankrupt from medical bills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So how much cheaper would it be for someone in Nashville to live forty five minutes outside of the city and commute to work instead of living in the trendy neighborhoods in the city near their job? Nashville itself has heavily annexed what were formerly separate suburban areas. It's a lot harder to be 45 minutes outside of Nashville than it is to be 45 minutes outside of Boston. Plus much more "Boston" employment is solidly outside Boston than "Nashville" employment is outside Nashville. Someone actually transferring from Nashville to "Boston" could be in any of a number of suburbs, edge cities, and satellite cities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:maybe, just maybe, $80k is a lot of money no matter where you live and complaining about being pushed out of the middle class is some first world bullshit while children go hungry in this country. I kinda think we should be aspiring for everyone to have, at minimum, a "middle class lifestyle," not merely for everyone to avoid raw hunger. The slow strangling death of the middle class is not a good thing for the country. Last I saw the threshold for the top 1% was somewhere around $250,000. I'm probably gonna count anybody below that as an ally. Whether they're making 50k or a 150k a year they're probably actually working for their living, not just drawing rents of one kind or another (land rent, financial fees, etc.) Arguing over exactly how hard people at the 50k and 100k and 150k income points have it seems like wasting time; none of those people are the enemy, and there's enough stored wealth in the top 1%'s hands to make life easier for everyone in the other 99 percentiles, without having to worry about exactly how much we need to weight the people in the 20th percentile vs. the people in the 80th. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not saying areas don't have different costs of living, I'm saying there isn't a place in the US that's seven times more expensive than another place based on location alone. Beyond that, I would argue that even if you live in NYC, $90k of household income still makes you pretty loving rich. What do you think the people flipping burgers in NYC are making? It's just a shame that so called "liberals" will start to defend their own economic positions when confronted with the fact that maybe, just maybe, $80k is a lot of money no matter where you live and complaining about being pushed out of the middle class is some first world bullshit while children go hungry in this country. Is this some bad gimmick or are you really angry at "liberals" to the point of having to mention it in every post ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:pages of "but cost of living" What bullshit. If living in New York means the first $85k you personally make a year goes to the increased 'cost of living', then how the hell do the millions of people in New York living in poverty do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:48
|
|
