General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
7 Things The Middle Class Can't Afford Anymore
http://www.businessinsider.com/7-things-middle-class-cant-afford-2014-10Vacations
A vacation is an extra expense that many middle-earners cannot afford without sacrificing something else. A Statista survey found that this year 54% of people gave up purchasing big ticket items like TVs or electronics so they can go on a vacation. Others made sacrifices like reducing or eliminating their trips to the movies (47%), reducing or eliminating trips out to restaurants (43%), or avoiding purchasing small ticket items like new clothing (43%).
Very few people who earn the median income can afford to buy a new car or truck. Interest.com recently analyzed the prices of new cars and trucks, as well as the median incomes across more than two dozen major cities, and found that new cars and trucks were simply not affordable to most middle-earners.
To pay off debt
These debt statistics come from Debt.org:
“More than 160 million Americans have credit cards.”
“The average credit card holder has at least three cards.”
“On average, each household with a credit card carries more than $15,000 in credit card debt.”
Not only do we have large amounts of credit card debt, we also have student loans, mortgages, cars, and medical debts. Our debt is growing faster than our income, and many middle class workers have trouble staying afloat. >Money-Zine evaluated debt growth and income growth over the past few decades and found that “back in 1980, the consumer credit per person was $1,540, which was 7.3% of the average household income of $21,100. In 2013, consumer debt was $9,800 per person, which was 13.4% of the average household income of $72,600. This means debt increased 70% faster than income from 1980 through 2013.”
Emergency savings
To provide ourselves with a degree of financial security, we are supposed to have emergency savings to protect ourselves in the event of job loss, illness, or some other catastrophe. Most members of the middle class don’t have at least six months of emergency savings, however, and some working people have no such savings.
Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/personal-finance/7-things-the-middle-class-cant-afford-anymore.html/?a=viewall#ixzz3HFbVY7Ho
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
glowing
(12,233 posts)is disgusting and wrong. Writing an article that says its normal to be "middle class" and not have enough money for items that used to be "middle class" items, is subduing the population and having people accept this as a way of life. So, what happens when all of these new "middle class" workers enter the age of retirement? Who and how do we take care of people who have no savings and limited social security? (and believe me, everyone keeps telling me I shouldn't expect to have any social security when I reach 67 or whatever rotten number they decide my retirement number should be)... so what is this country going to do?
It's past time to raise everyone's take home pay while investing in the infrastructure projects that need to be done and while taxing the 1% club their due.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)1. food
2. rent
fuck this shit.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)of the people buying crap off the dollar menu at McDonalds because it's cheaper than going to the grocery store and buying something nutritious, health problems and related costs due to a poor diet put the squeeze on consumers even more. It's a no win.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I spent $40. Unreal what is happening in the grocery store, but we don't have inflation 
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)market this afternoon was $13.00. A small chuck roast was $17.00. A pound of hamburger meat 30% fat was $6.99. People must be eating a lot of hot dogs and mac and cheese these days.
Kali
(55,025 posts)
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)And be willing to price it accordingly.
At store A, I managed to find last week a small pack of chicken tenderloins marked down to $1.50/lb.
But they will hardly ever mark their last-day beef below $3 a pound.
Store B?? Their idea of "cheap last day beef" is $4 a pound.
((occasional bargains on other meat...))
Warpy
(111,359 posts)I want chicken soup and a small package of wings cost me seven bucks! That is insane, I use the wings because they're skin and bones and make good soup and you can't get backs and necks any more.
But we have no inflation.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and when I bring up obamacare, all he does is complain about how expensive it is.
imagine a world in which it's cost-prohibitive to provide adequate preventative care, because people are prevented from taking proper care of themselves in the first place.
human health is one of the many unfortunate externalities in american capitalism.
Johonny
(20,890 posts)The middle class is shrinking fast. Meanwhile many still think of themselves as middle class. The question is how do you convince someone that's fallen out of the middle class that they're not middle class and it is time to stop thinking with a middle class attitude. Politicians rarely talk about the poor they instead talk about the middle class. The general reason is people all think they're middle class. It gets less true every day.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I came from a family pretty close to the median income growing up. We RARELY had a real vacation, and when we did, we scrimped and saved for it. Same for our friends and neighbors. And six months emergency fund? Yeah, I'd like to see the data that says that was EVER something the middle class routinely had.
One problem is that "median income" doesn't really represent a "middle class income." I'm not sure it ever did, but it sure isn't now. Income distribution isn't anywhere close to Gaussian, and so the median income will always be heavily weighted towards the bottom of that scale. I think a "true" middle class income is really something like twice the median income.
Warpy
(111,359 posts)Being middle class takes a six figure income, even in Mississippi.
The rest of us have been shoved into the working class, the working poor, and the poor.
If you judge the country by the health of the people, then this country is in crisis.
But we knew that. The pigs who bought Congress don't care.
They just want more--more control, more wars, more money.
merrily
(45,251 posts)JMO
Warpy
(111,359 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)probably retire, if you saved most of it and/or invested it well. If you didn't save most of it or invest it well, but lived lavishly, you work because that was your choice.
I said something about being working class to a doctor once--a doctor who did not make tons of money. He wanted to make a distinction because he considered "working class" to be close to an insult. I don't because my father about killed himself working in a factory to support his family. He would have killed to have gotten an education, but that was out of his reach for many reasons. Same for his brothers. I went to college, but that didn't make me a better person than my father or his brothers. Indeed, I went to college because of my father's about killing himself in a factory. So, how could I possibly consider him beneath me because I had an education and he couldn't get one for himself, but made sure I got one?
Divide and conquer. Works every time.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)Showing all of the bright and shiny big ticket items. Their message was basically that they were an option for "the new economy"....wrapping up the fact that people were having difficulty purchasing these things with a bright shiny bow.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not working 3 lousy jobs to pay the rent while some are earning several million a year, every year and whining about income taxes
Sparhawk60
(359 posts)You make an outstanding point. This could be the start of getting the 99% to accept the new normal. Work til you die, no vacations, no new cars, only beaters, never a spare penny and definitely no raining day fund to tide you over if you decide to quit your job.
We used to call people like that poor, but I guess now they are middle class.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I make less than half of that. Next year I will make about 1/5 of that and I can afford all three of those mentioned. Well, the new car might be a stretch and make me postpone retirement. One more reason I would not want to spend that much on a car.
And when it comes to income, which is what we tax, the top 20% has more of it than the top 1%.
glowing
(12,233 posts)And really, depending on where u live, it's not that much money... Not the kind that keeps Main St humming along like a well oiled machine.
This isn't a contest on how cheap and sparse everyone can be. If everyone is cheap and sparse in an economy that is based 70% in consumer sales, then you will have a net loss as people save or you will have an overspending of debt by people trying to keep up or keep their heads floating.
I personally wish the economic model that we have now would change to a saner one based on people's needs and humanity, along with a purpose of realizing that we live on a planet with finite resources. The current trickle down, supply side economy doesn't work. Even switching the model around to demand sided with better pay doesn't address the real issues we face as humans on this planet.
But I doubt that one person can single handily suggest a different economic model and have it take flight against the many, many, many forces who enjoy the status quo too much and are still in a great deal of power. God forbid people wake up and realize that it's all a farce and it doesn't have to feel or look like this for people.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)by insisting that people get more money so they can fritter more of it away on useless crap.
Why can't most people live well on $50,000 a year? Is it because they
a) are not making enough money, or
b) have a consumer-driven twisted idea of what it means to "live well"?
I tend towards the latter answer.
But then too, people will tell me about the crazy costs of living in a place like NYC or Baltimore or Seattle or Houston or Milwaukee. Rents are very high and houses very expensive.
From my perspective though it would come back NOT to workers don't make enough money, but to real estate is too frigging expensive.
glowing
(12,233 posts)rid us of the problem essential that we live in a world with finite resources.
I suppose it would come down to what is considered a "good life" that is worthwhile living and feels like an accomplishment in waking everyday... What are our true values overall? For me, education (affordable or free) should be a hallmarks in a valuable society; whether that is learning a trade or studying philosophy, it should be free or affordable. Being able to work in a position one is best suited for would also be a lofty goal, but without forcing and with ability to attain position. And that job should allow for a home, savings, retirement at a sane age. I would be ideally comfortable knowing that I could take 4- 6 wks off in a year to vacation where ever I found interesting. The world is large and exciting, and i would absolutely love to travel more. Healthcare access for all people would also be a caveat to a sane society.
Now, I know there are others who would rather have a bigger home than to ever wander around the world. There are others who would love to have a fishing boat and spend weekends out on a lake and fishing.
The thing is I think we could strike a balance before going apocalyptic, but will we, probably not. In the meantime things will continue to feel worse for many and worry and stress will eat up their lives. And so sadly, it doesn't have to be like this at all. But movements and society changes take many people, and many people are living silently suffering the tide of struggle. And now, it's so common that they are writing articles about the "new middle class"... Like its a value to care for.
BTW, that salary wouldn't begin to pay for college education of your kids. They either go and be hampered in debt as they begin life, or they don't go and limit their ability to make money in the long term. Back in the day, when taxes were higher, the cost of an education could be handled by limited loans or a summer job... Not anymore.
haele
(12,681 posts)Look, my folks made just over $20K between them in 1976. That's pretty much the "wage equivalent" of a two-wage earner family making around $52K or so...and...
That year, five years after having made an "empty the savings and move halfway across the country" household transfer to pursue the final two years post-graduate for Dad's Master's Degree (and a job as an adjunct instructor at a community college), they were able to:
1) Take the ritual annual 1-week camping trip - this time out to the next state over (a good 900 mile drive).
2) Buy a rather large house for $27K on a 7% 20-year mortgage with 10% down.
3) Buy a NEW CAR to replace the 1958 clunker that was finally dying on them...
4) Pay for music lessons for me and my brother
5) Put aside 2% a month on top of that in savings that would later be turned into a 5-year CD at 8% interest.
Think about that - with two children who were taking music and a new house, a student/secretary (Mom was going back to school to get her BA, which she had put aside while Dad was getting his Masters as someone had to work full-time) and a teacher who was embarking on his second year year full-time teaching after getting his master's degree at a major university (i.e., he did not have tenure yet) were still able to have enough income left over at the end of the month that they could put the equivalent of 2% of their income into a CD and still maintain a small savings account for emergencies.
Of course, they had pensions with their employers, and full medical benefits that were paid, but still, that was a huge accomplishment.
In 1976, they were still considered "working class/lower middle class" and were able to do all of that in the span of one year.
As for true middle class - my best friend in high school who's mother was an elementary school teacher and father was a bank loans manager (BA in Accounting) were considered middle class, and they could easily save for an annual family plane trip back east (seeing the sites), owned their own home in a really nice neighborhood free and clear, and had a cleaning service come in once a week to help out with the "heavy cleaning". Lisa and all her siblings were able to make the senior school "trip to Washington" without having to sell candy or wrapping paper all year like the rest of us, that was just one of the things the parents thought were important to save for.
They even had two newer cars, one for each parent. And Lisa, along with her brother and two sisters, didn't have to worry about student loans to get their various levels of degrees.
That was middle class back in the day. Those same people, with those same jobs now-a-days would never be able to do those people do.
Primarily because wages have not kept up, and also because of the stresses of "production levels" and an idea that everything must be monetized to have value. Sure, we didn't have computers and cell phones to clutter our lives with "annual service plans" and the like but even then, people had refrigerators and stoves, phone services (with seriously expensive long distance), and indoor plumbing for the most part, and most people had a TV or a car.
Haele
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)For most
Warpy
(111,359 posts)in corporate middle management. Too many times people are having to settle for the jobs they might have gotten right out of high school with the lousy wages to match, struggling to pay down their crippling debt by living with their parents and in terror of getting sick.
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)To be right-brained in America today is like being left-handed 50 years ago. Try as I might, I just don't have the mind for math, and therefore no hope of getting the "good jobs" in computers or medicine. Even being an auto mechanic requires computer training these days.
I don't have the patience to be a teacher either. Or the public-speaking skills (or ability to do so without rendering myself incontinent). Plus, nobody really needs to "study" things that they can find out in a quick Google or Wikipedia search. "Who's buried in Grant's tomb" will also tell you why it's not Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis. Bookstores and libraries are dying, not only because of Amazon and lack of public funding (for the libraries) but because Americans cannot be bothered to read and actually regard it as snobby. Need a quick synopsis of a book? Go to Wikipedia or Goodreads and you'll find out: Ron dies at the end. That'll tell you everything you need to know -- including the all-important "spoiler alerts" so that you don't actually have to even open the book to the last page.
I'll say it again, and again, and again, and again: there are no jobs for "intellectuals" in a country that worships the Kardashians. There are no jobs for curators when everyone has a Tumbler. There are no jobs for writers when everyone has a blog. There are no jobs for teachers when Google remembers everything.
Technology killed the liberal arts star.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)pay and working conditions suck, but they can't replace me with a robot because the state mandates that a credentialed teacher be in a public school classroom at all times. After teaching for a few years and almost having a breakown, I became a travel agent. When the internet did away with that, it was back to the classroom as a sub- the only job available for someone my age.
I, too, am math challenged. But even good math skills can't save you when you hit 50+ and find yourself unemployed. My math wiz computer literate husband was laid off at 59. After struggling for months, he ended up taking a crappy job he was overqualified for at a 40% pay cut. Kids today getting science degrees better go for the biggest bucks possible and start saving because they, too, will be 50 one day and kicked out the door.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)when I was in school (I finished classes in the spring, will graduate next month) that in my business classes there were a couple of people who already had science degrees. One person had been a veterinarian for years but couldn't make ends meet (then developed allergies). Another - finished a science degree with the goal of working in a lab- and couldn't find a single job. So, decided to go into the program I was in - an accounting degree. One guy had an engineering technician diploma and couldn't find a job, so went into accounting.
In our accounting classes our prof would constantly pontificate about how rich we would be. Not one of the people in my classes that did get jobs got jobs that paid well. We are all making under poverty level wages. It's been eye opening. I see people around me trying to get MBAs or CPAs and still working crappy jobs. Even now, they are lying to students. "Once you get your CPA, you'll be rich!" is something I've heard quite often, however I've been keeping an eye out on jobs for CPAs in the area, and they all want 5-10 years experience and start at 40,000-60,000 a year. Hardly rich. Teachers start higher here (but teaching jobs are hard to come by). It seems pretty hopeless sometimes that a basic degree does anything more than makes sure you aren't starving.
Warpy
(111,359 posts)Nurses have been getting out of school and finding hiring freezes, too.
Only a rapid reordering of priorities in this country is going to work and that is going to have to wait until the bankers foul things up so badly that Congress is seeing negative cash flow and the lobbyists go into hiding.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Otherwise you remain a technician (field or lab) or doing some kind of more menial tasks.
dorothy79
(6 posts)I have not found that to be true at all. The college educations (some graduate degrees) of my three children and 29 nieces and nephews have opened doors that are simply not open for HS grads.
I think it may be different in different parts of the country, but here, at least, it is a must unless you are a veteran or can get into the skilled trades, which is difficult.
Warpy
(111,359 posts)2008 was the watershed year and fewer and fewer grads have found jobs waiting for them when they graduate.
bottomofthehill
(8,348 posts)My wife and I both work, and fortunately have good, well paying jobs making us very middle class. The thing that scares us both the most is helping our children start their life with out a mountain of college debt. We have never bought a new car, are putting a little into retirement (thankfully there is some company match money) vacation with family which keeps the cost down, the kids education really scares. The numbers are startling and coming sooner than we are ready for.
merrily
(45,251 posts)dorothy79
(6 posts)Our third, youngest, is finishing up this year. While we will be fine in retirement, there won't be many Alaskan cruises. We weren't able to pay it all, but their debt is manageable and well worth it. People are often afraid to apply to private colleges but all three of ours went to private schools with big endowments and we got a lot of grants and aid.
The oldest now has her Masters' degree - They're on their own for that!!
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)$144.00 per year to attend a California state university back in the early 70s. Today my daughter is paying close to 20k for the same thing. That's just obscene.
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)She lived at home and her grant money covered her tuition. She was able to graduate debt free.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)My husband and I sacrificed mightily to put the money aside to make it happen. Too many kids graduate drowning in debt.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Sacrifice is right...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Maybe the people of Illinois should start charging the U of I rent. 
Just disgusts me how expensive the U of I is, when it should be either free or at least cheap.
On edit, just look into the Morill Act of the 19th Century which established land grant schools and the the driving purpose behind the Act was to establish schools where lower income youngsters could get an education.
It's yet another institution in the US which has been corrupted by big money, and the people who administer these colleges are making WAY too much.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)in Iowa instead of Illinois for just that reason. While Iowa State does not have the engineering reputation of Illinois, it is still a fine university that is highly rated. An Illinois native can go to it at the same or less cost than Illinois. My daughter's friend in mechanical engineering made that decision.
valerief
(53,235 posts)go to school, even if it's paid for, because they have to work long hours just to survive. There's no time for school, let alone money for it.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)my tuition was $50 a semester, books and fees were around $250. I was able to put myself through school on summer clerical jobs, at least for the years I lived at home. When I got my own place, I got a 3-11 clerical job at The Methodist Hospital to make up the difference. (It was a great job. All I did was sit in the nursing administration office and take calls for special duty nurses. I could do my studies at my desk because I was the only person in the office, and there was nothing else to do.) Even though our pay wasn't much back then - I think I made $300-350 a month - it was sufficient. My rent was $64 for a two-bedroom apartment, that I sometimes shared with a roommate, food wasn't all that expensive, and even the drugs were cheap. 
packman
(16,296 posts)Sending your kids to college was the goal of most middle-class families. Mom and dad working to try to provide their children with a step-up in life. Now a college education seems reserved for those in the upper class and ,except for getting crippling college loans, beyond the reach of most middle-class families. Even my old college is now charging 40k a year for tuition and classes, well beyond the grasp of the working class population it used to draw from.
KentuckyWoman
(6,696 posts)The problem is that it is no longer possible to gain the skills necessary to earn a decent income without spending a kings ransom on college. They destroyed the technical and vocational schools and most industries have killed off apprenticeship programs. It forces anyone who wants to learn the skill into 4 year colleges.
If you wonder why..... follow the money.
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)Is it because teachers suck, or lack of funding, or too much focus on football, or Western language isn't "mathematical" like Eastern languages are, or American kids are lazy and coddled while Eastern kids are just smarter and their parents have no sympathy for failure, or what?
Why do we graduate so many English majors and so few engineers? Or at least a lot fewer than the Eastern countries do? I don't mean because there are more people in total in India and China than the U.S., I mean why does it seem they have more aptitude with math while we're more educationally "diverse" and therefore have a lot of unemployable poets and cartoonists serving up Big Macs instead of coding?
Why does it seem the West, in particular the U.S., is more right-brained (or an even mix) than the East? What, if anything, can be done about it, and should we even try to shove poets into hard math classes? Is there anything that we can do to make poets and artists more employable in a data-driven math economy?
a la izquierda
(11,797 posts)or MBAs for that matter. American students do to know how to think critically. That is drilled out of them in elementary school.
That's what college is supposed to teach them. But universities are being run on business models now, so even the critical thinking element is going away.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)My Univ. of California tuition was in the hundreds for a semester. The cost has risen exponentially beyond income.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)in reach for the middle class, including us. Looks like community college for our oldest. After he's there two years, yikes, there are still two years to pay for somewhere for a BA. Not sure what will happen then.
madville
(7,412 posts)I know plenty of people "struggling" because they "have" to have a $40,000 SUV and a $45,000 4x4 truck in the driveway that gets 15 miles per gallon when a $15,000 car that gets 40mpg would work just as well. I've always been frugal, out of necessity when I made $20k a year and now just out of habit since I make several times that now.
$600-800 car payments, $400 a month for gas, and $200 cell phone bills will eat up a budget quick. They could have a new $15,000 car for $250ish a month, cut their gas to $150 and get an unlimited $50 a month cell plan. Instant $900 a month savings but what kind of image does that exhibit to Jones' they are trying to keep up with and it goes against their conditioning to demand "luxury" and consume instantly.
My grandparents were solid middle class, they had an 1100 sq ft very modest home, drove modest vehicles, didn't have many perks but when it came time to retire they had $1,000,000 saved up. I think people these days are way less willing to sacrifice now in order for it to pay off later.
I also think technology is pulling more money out of our pockets these days as well. It was easier for people to get by in the years before everyone needed a smartphone, high speed internet, cable/satellite TV, laptops, tablets, Iphones, etc. If you average the devices costs and recurring subscription services out per month I would bet the average person is spending at least $500 a month on these technologies.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)madville
(7,412 posts)A couple of months ago a coworker who makes the same as I do was complaining about his $400 electric bill because they "have" to keep their air conditioner on 74 in their 3,500 sq ft house. My 1100 sq ft house is $80 a month and I keep it on 77 in the summer.
The problem is middle class people trying to live like they make $250,000 a year.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's funny, I could afford to buy a new car now, but I won't. I'm still driving my bought used 2002 VW Jetta td. I don't even own a cell phone let alone a smart phone or a tablet.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)eventually bought a new car just cos it was cheaper what with the snowballing costs of repairs.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I get by without a smartphone, but can't do without my meds. it's the necessities, and not the toys, which are breaking the bank.
in today's world, your solidly middle class grandparents would be stressing about the food bills.
madville
(7,412 posts)It's still possible to be comfortable on a middle class income. I'm middle class and live pretty cheap because I like not stressing about money, I could get a bigger house and a fancier vehicle but I have no reason to.
Of course there are specific scenarios where people will struggle on a middle class income due to medical bills, etc like you mention and that is unfortunate. Speaking in general though, it's easy to see the majority of the struggling middle class are attempting to live above their pay grade. I'm not saying they are solely to blame at all, people are conditioned non-stop that they "need" that big house, they need that gas-guzzling land yacht SUV, they can't live without this or that, etc.
As far as food bills go, food is actually "cheaper" and a smaller percentage of peoples' expenditures than it has ever been. I recently read a study that showed how food prices have actually stagnated in the last few decades, 40 years ago the average household spent 20% of their income on food, now it's closer to 10%. You can find old grocery store sales flyers online, I was surprised how expensive food used to be 40-50 years ago, it was about 1/2 the cost it is now. The price of food may have doubled or tripled in the last 40-50 years but average incomes have increased x10, that truck driver that used to make $4,000 a year now makes $40,000 for example but their food costs have only doubled or tripled in the same amount of time.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)therefore the article.
I think food is getting more expensive, actually.
CrispyQ
(36,527 posts)Every week you pay more, every fucking week. Produce, one of the healthiest departments, is also one of the most expensive. I hate that inflation figures don't include food or energy - two big ticket items that everyone needs.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)(who is not at all a RWNJ at all, but easily gets suckered into racist GOP talking points) bitching about how people on welfare (yeah, blah people) getting steak and whatnot and how she had to buy chicken.
A package of 1.5 pound chicken is $8 here now though. Grrr
packman
(16,296 posts)Two months of Sarah Palin's TV channel if you can answer - which Presidential candidate ran on the promise of:
“a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage"
because - get this - chicken was considered a luxury, big-ticket item. If you could afford the bird, you were making good money.
Answer: Herbert Hoover
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)my local market today was $13.00. Needess to say, chicken is not on the menu tonight.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)are not exactly loading up the cart, either. A few items has become the norm.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)has just given me a 1.7% COLA hike starting in January. Have those price regulators been grocery shopping lately? No inflation they say, I say bullshit. Every time I go shopping the prices have risen.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Pretending that there is no inflation without considering food and energy is ridiculous, and shame on those in charge of calculating inflation for acting like those two don't matter.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Too volatile, supposedly.
So, poor seniors and the disabled will do better if airline ticket prices spike than if the price of food triples. Too bad airlines can do things like charge more fees, and working people can take fewer plane trips, but poor people who can't work have no choice but to eat.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)Getting divorced when I had two small children, one with disabilities, crushed every penny and more of all the money I earned for 20 years. Not getting divorced wasn't an option when the increasing emotional abuse of 9 years changed one day and the fists came out. For the last quarter of those 20 years, or more, I was in the 97th percentile of earnings for women without a degree. That still didn't cover even basic necessities. Went years without a phone, or periodically, no gas or electric. No dental coverage for myself for 20 years, hardly ever any medical coverage at all. Just rent, transportation, very minimal groceries, and medical for the children. For a year, my transportation to work was walking because my car engine died, and fortunately, I could walk to work that year.
When my younger child was 21, and I was 48, I was able to get him into public programs, and no longer had to pay $800 and more a month for his health care. I celebrated that year, and spent the $200 I had that year over basic necessities to buy a boom box. The one behind me right now.
Got lucky and got married again at 49 in 2004. Able to finish college finally for teaching degree. Economy collapses. 20,000 teaching jobs vanish (and more are still vanishing). Fortunately only $10.000 in debt for the wasted investment to now be paid back on ONE income. There are no teaching jobs to be found, and I can't return to former occupations which caused a number of repetitive motion and other injuries. My office skills that carried me across many years are no longer considered valuable... though I learned countless computer programs over the course of my business life, because I don't already know whatever particular new one the insecure managers of current companies are using and they have no interest nor maybe the smarts to train employees, and because I am considered useless because I am over 50, there is no work for me now. Throw me a shovel to bury myself, that's the outlook. Useless.
Husband got ill; he had to retire early at 62, losing hundreds per month, forever more, in pension and social security income, and adding $1500 per month
in expenses for medical insurance premiums for three years.... ACA, or no ACA, same cost. Just better coverage in the non-ACA option (zero co-insurance, zero deductibles). Hubby works as a substitute teacher now, but he can only earn $15k a year, or social security takes it back....health insurance went up $18k a year, income went down, and he is only allowed to make $15k back. Unless he wants to work all day with nasty kids for $25 a day net. We had to bear a tax burden our parents did not: much higher tax and SS/medicare deductions over the course of our working lives, and now, when retired, much higher taxes on SS income, which originally, was not taxed. 85% of our social security retirement is taxed. That $15k a year part time sub job is taxed federally at 18%, state at 6%, local at 1%, plus SSI and medicare (that's about 8%, right?) Even when you count in the tax deduction for the $18k in insurance, we are even farther behind trying to make up those enormous premiums.
He drives a gas-friendly 2007 Toyota, paid for in full; after a year with no car, I now luxuriate with the 2006 Ford van my parents gave to me for free when they bought a new car this year. I last bought a pair of shoes (other than flip-flops) seven years ago. We each buy about four pieces of clothing per year.
The mortgage on our modest home of 1200 sq feet is far less than rent for smaller apartments and saves some on income taxes. We bought it in 2006, not knowing this was market peak (that was the timing of our lives); it has lost 35% of its value and we didn't have a 35% downpayment. We do have an interest rate, now, below 4%.
My daughter pays for the cell phone, or there would not be one. My sister gave us an old iPad one. My mother (86 years old) could no longer use the computer
she bought two years ago,so that replaced the 10 year old one that crashed. My son, the one with the disabilities, is a computer genius and he frequently has put my computer back in working shape with his wizardry at no cost for labor to me at all over the years. My daughter buys us a movie gift card for Christmas each year (but movies are so bad lately that we just now used up the last of it...took 10 months to find movies MAYBE worth seeing...)
We do pay $200 a month for internet, telephone, and television. That is our sole source of entertainment, other than gasoline for family visits, and the purchase of an occasional book. We have $300 a month in the budget leftover for medical deductibles, and everything else, including paying for the termite infestation and leaking chimney and basement that flooded when my neighbors regraded their yard.
With the pension we are most fortunate, compared to many others, to have, and SS retirement, we are above that 'middle class' $54k a bit. We have less than $300 a month left, because of debts incurred and repairs on the home deferred while I did the 'responsible' thing and went to school for the 2.5 years I had yet to complete for my degree.
Single payer health care would make us middle class.When he turns 65 in March (if he is still here Lord please), then our health care costs will drop about $500 a month, and we can work at catching up. But it will still be about $700 a month for my insurance, at first look. I'll need to spend a month digging through mountains of crazy insurance verbage before a final decision.
Luxury to us is binge watching on demand, and electronics from someone else that actually function.
The economy and health care crushed us.
It's not our attitude about what is necessary, or not necessary. HERE'S THE SAD PART: WE ARE SO VERY, VERY, VERY MUCH BETTER OFF THAN MILLIONS OF OTHERS. It's not about cell phones, and fancy electronics.... maybe for younger people it is... but not for my generation.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)And think they are superior because they'd handle their bills better. Maybe this one family you know could be more frugal but it doesn't change the fact that the necessities: home (rent or mortgage), education, energy, healthcare and food cost far far more for each family than they did thirty years ago. It's not technology that makes life more expensive. Elisabeth Warren's speech on the death of the middle class has been posted to this site numerous times. She illustrates the rising costs of everyday life that are putting pressure on the middle class and also illustrates why tech is not the culprit with plenty of charts and data. Have you watched it yet? This article just points out the same thing and that the trend has not reversed. Every time someone says "Oh they should just have made better decisions and then they wouldn't have this problem" it undermines any effort to address the real problem. People need better paying secure jobs.
There are so many things in our system that puts pressure on workers and the middle class today. If both liberals and conservatives accept the idea that the middle class suffers because they're just making bad spending decisions than is it any wonder that the problem persists?
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)Kali
(55,025 posts)it is a right wing ploy to blame victims for not being personally responsible for their own suffering. yes we could all be monks on a hill, but that does not change the greed of some in power or the facts of a failing/flailing middle class in this country.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Response to abelenkpe (Reply #20)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Smartphones are expected by many employers in this day and age. Do I have one? Yes. I upgraded from a 4 yo phone in May and I purposely waited until the new model came out and bought the 1 year old model as I knew that the price on the Galaxy 4 would drop as soon as the galaxy 5 came out. (The price dropped by $200). My cell phone plan is $85/month for two smartphones (I share with my mom) that has unlimited talk and text and limited data.
I have a tablet too (Kindle Fire) and the only thing I spent on it were the initial costs of it and recently I got a new case for it. It does not have a recurring charge (it's wifi only). I mostly use it for Netflix and to read ebooks that I borrow from my library. In fact my tablet actually SAVES me money because I use Netflix and Amazon Prime streaming video in place of cable TV. (I average about $16/month for video streaming).
There is a phenomenon called 'cord-cutting' where people (mostly younger) use streaming services like Netflix and avoid cable TV altogether. If the cable is $50 a month and Netflix and Prime costs $16, that is a lot of $$ being saved. Millennials are twice as likely to be cord cutters than their older counterparts. The only time I missed TV was after Robin Williams died because watching the news coverage of it would have shown me clips of his movies.
I realize my cell phone plan (which I'm on top of and always try to get the cheapest possible) is pretty damn cheap considering it's for two smartphones. How much a smartphone costs now depends on how much data you use. if you do things like use your smartphone to stream music or movies, then it will be a data hog (this can be fixed by connecting to wifi). I even have a separate GPS because the GPS is a data hog on a smartphone. The data I use when I'm not in a wifi area tend to be things like reading email or looking up an address.
But you know what I don't pay for? A landline. And I never have. In fact my half of the cell phone bill is probably cheaper than many people pay for a landline, and I don't have to worry about long-distance (any call within the US is free), paying extra to have my number private, unwanted calls, etc.
When you add up internet, my phone, and my streaming services, I spend about $120 a month. Internet is such a necessity in this day and age that I treat it like a utility (and I really wish the cost would go down). Being that you are posting on an online forum, I bet you pay for internet service too. I could give up internet, but that would mean that I would spend a lot more time in places like Starbucks and McDonalds and spend more on their food than home internet service.
(A laptop is not a recurring subscription for most people, it's a one-time purchase. The laptop I'm on now is 4 years old).
I'll get off your lawn now.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)always on welfare, at least if they're poor) for having a car, a smart phone, and a computer.
How the hell are they supposed to pull themselves up by their boot straps if they don't have those things?
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)And it didn't start with the Internet. We didn't feel we were missing out on anything with free TV before cable. Home team and postseason sports were on all the time and the programming quality was just fine, too (think CBS' Saturday night sitcom line-up, e.g.). American capitalism is exceedingly good at figuring out what people are "underpaying" for relative to its potential value and leveraging technology to make up the difference. Once that happens, they are also very good at developing pretty new baubles to hang on the tree, too.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)The network TV I remember were things like ABC's TGIF lineup (late 80s/early 90s-- shows like Full House and Family Matters). CBS's Saturday night sitcom lineup is something I have no idea about. I remember going to a place as a kid that did not have cable and only two channels were available (ABC and CBS-- we could not even get NBC). It was an all or nothing thing. Maybe Boomers know life before TV became a pay phenomenon but millennials definitely do not, and it's not their fault at all.
What people like the poster I replied to fail to accept is that technology has changed and people (gasp) actually embrace the new technology, whether it be cheaper or more expensive. It's a reality in this day and age, otherwise people would still be listening to 8-tracks. The last time I paid for a landline (college calling plan) my bill was between $40-60 a month for about 500 minutes of calling. Calls home were about a quarter a minute. (This was 1998-1999--- if I had gone back to that college, I would have bought a cell phone and used that instead). A long phone call with my long-distance boyfriend was about $20 for one call. Today I'm paying $40/month for unlimited calling and I happen to be able to use my device to text, not worry about the length of calls, get email, play games, read the news, etc. Same price, but I get a lot bigger bang for my buck with technology. And I'm not sharing a line with 3 roommates and can make a call whenever I want.
In my line of work, you won't get hired without a laptop or smartphone. Everyone knows it and accepts the reality. Computers are not supplied and everyone's expected to use their own laptop and bring it to work.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)You could be a full-on member of the culture pre-personal devices without the extra $200-300 a month that many people spend these days for TV, Internet/smartphones. And your paycheck was the same in real terms as it is now, for most people. Viewed this way, the age of connectivity has been a net economic loss for many people, even if it brings non-economic sources of pleasure.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)In this day and age, the only people I know of who don't use technology are either older (80+) or certain fundamentalist cultures who shun technology (ie the Amish). The post I was initially replying to sounded like it was coming from a retiree who has no idea about the norm today and shuns people for embracing technology. That post sounded like it was coming from a talking head on Fox News talking about the welfare queen with an iPhone. I had to double-check the URL of the forum I was on to make sure it was not Free Republic.
This is not the first time I've seen posts about how technology is the cause of financial problems, and frankly it's a HUGE pet peeve of mine and gets under my skin (especially coming from people a generation older than me). I've seen people suggest that a landline is a utility in a household budget and a cell phone is a luxury. There are several personal finance blogs out there who think it's a luxury yet have no problem using an emergency only Tracfone and a landline. I'd rather have ONE phone where I can be reached at all the time, and I'm probably paying less for the smartphone than I would for a landline. I'm sure at one point people were bitching that a color TV is a luxury where a black and white one is not. Maybe at one point the elders were complaining that the youngers were SO ENTITLED because they shit in a flush toilet as opposed to an outhouse and that indoor plumbing is a luxury that can be cut from the budget.
I'm not sure how old you are, but there's a generation who was raised in the era of connectivity and does not know anything else. TV has always been cable for me, and cable always had commercials. I don't know what life was like before the age of connectivity because I was either too young to remember or not alive. My parents got their first computer when I was 4 years old, and I learned how to type at 5. TV was always cable, and I got the internet in high school (AOL). I had my own computer (as opposed to using a family one) from HS graduation on (my first computer was a graduation present).
People born in 1996 can now vote. Our youngest voters (if they get their asses to the polls) have never known a world without cell phones, the internet, MP3s, email, social media, etc. Do you honestly think someone born in 1996 is going to start a household with a landline and no computer? Do you think they're going to get through life without an email address?
Expectations are different too. Want proof? Apply for a job without an email address. Even low-skilled retail jobs (where 10 years ago you would walk into a store and fill out an application) are now all online (Target has an in-store kiosk where you apply). And I'd hardly call a place like Target an employer that needs to reach you 24/7.
In years past, you could still be gainfully employed and know squat about things like computers. My grandfather has never used a computer in his life and he's just fine with it. He's also 90 years old and knows that he is not the norm. The world he lives in is not the world I or even my dad lives in. Every older generation complains about the younger ones for being in a different world with the day's technology.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)ie dumping landlines, but Internet access, because it has become an essential, is an absolute ripoff in this country. The best quality/cost delivery is in Chattanooga, because it is publicly-owned and operated and was developed that way as an inducement to business. One of the things I hoped Obama would be able to achieve in his presidency was to bring down the cost and improve the quality of Internet access in rural areas, which remains the biggest ripoff of all. But, of course, the same people who would be helped by that believe he is Satan personified.
The inter-generational stuff is a waste of time, by the way. I've got kids who are way younger than you and they're about as interested in the way I grew up as I was about my parents lives in the 1940s, and I don't have an issue with that at all. But technology has become the central element of our personal existence in ways that aren't fully appreciated and are rarely if ever discussed on a public policy level. Since real incomes have been stagnant since before you were born, it's worth reflecting on the impact of new technology costs on the average citizen and how we might manage them better.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)And I wish it was regulated like a public utility. The reality is that internet (and cable) is a monopoly here and I keep paying more for spottier service. I call for help and to report outages and the dumbass cable company just tells me how to reset the modem (which I can do in my sleep).
I long for something like Google fiber coming to my area because it would shape up Cablevision/Optimum. Cable companies are among the most hated companies in America (for all sides of the political spectrum) because they keep raising prices and providing less services. Optimum probably hates the amount of bandwidth I use watching Netflix. My last straw with TV was when they wanted more money for fewer channels.
As for the inter-generational thing, I pointed out earlier this week about the ages of Congress (as many born in the 20s as the 80s). I think it's not pointed out on a public policy level because our representatives are older than the rest of the country as a whole and don't understand the realities of modern life for younger people (another good example of this is student loans). (There are of course exceptions to this rule). The other issue is that companies like Comcast have Congress in their back pocket (another thread).
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)... or just basic web access at the local library. Right now I'm spoiled with Verizon DSL. Other people in my neighborhood have the exorbitant Comcast bundles. But for me, eh, I don't really use the Internet for much else besides DU and occasionally checking my school email. I actually don't even have a "regular" Google mail or Yahoo account and won't get one unless I absolutely have to. My mom has an AOL email that she never uses because she doesn't know how to (from way back when AOL was still providing ISP access). If I need to sign up for anything (job, etc.) she said I can use that.
You don't have to check your email all the time, and nobody needs social media. Really, most people could live without it. It won't kill you if you didn't check right away what clueless Uncle Larry said about "not traveling to Ebola." I get by just fine with a basic "flip phone" and pay-as-you-go plan that I don't use except to call and make calls. I don't even use text messages and I have never had, will never have, a Facebook or Twitter account.
Then again, I'm a quasi-recluse who doesn't really take an active interest in people's personal lives (nobody in my family even knows how to use a computer, much less even how to program a VCR, and I don't have friends because, again, I can't be bothered). I don't have much of a life anyway and can't be bothered to tell 10,000 strangers I don't know that I'm taking a shower or taking a dump. I don't understand people who think social media is an absolute must for getting by in today's society. Computer access, sure, but Facebook? Please, not unless you're an attention-seeking narcissist who thinks everything about you is awesome and you can't wait to share your latest BM with the whole world.
I know I'm in the minority among my generation, but I honestly don't see the point.
By the way, I'll also be voting this year, so that's got to be some redemption.
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)All you needed was a pair of rabbit ears (stock on a TV set), and an antenna on your roof. Now, there is no access at all without cable--at least not in most areas. When I was a kid, we had channels 2 - 13, plus a few UHF channels, all free before cable was available. When it did become available, it was for prime channels, and you could still get everything else without it. Now, you need to pay even for the basic networks.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)I remember three to four stations for a good chunk of the time growing up. A few more while in Southern California. Then cable came along for us in the late 1970s. You probably can do ok in a metro area with an antenna (even an indoor one). I checked in my area and I would have to spring for at least $200 plus installation to get all the networks and PBS. At about $20/mo. for the basic cable, it made more sense to hang onto that (28 channels). I have to jump up another $40/mo. for expanded cable. Trust me I like pocketing the extra $500/yr. I just wish I had done it sooner. With the ability to purchase ala carte shows through Amazon I am able to cover the only show I actually missed after cancelling. That cost me less than the one month difference in cable, and I can watch the show anytime I want.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)I have all kinds of gadgets. But, I didn't have kids or buy a house! Gee.....
kiva
(4,373 posts)My bill for internet with a land line (unlimited long distance, call waiting, caller ID) is $5 less than for the same speed internet alone; and it's not just me, I was talking with some friends this weekend and three of them said that their internet + landline was either the same price or cheaper than just the internet. I save that $5 plus I'm able to get a much cheaper cell phone plan that limits call minutes because I use my land line when I'm home. So $5 off my monthly internet charge, at least $15 savings each month for my cell phone...my land line pays back $20 per month. Plus my landline is much clearer and doesn't go out in most emergencies.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)But for $40/month when I get a smartphone with unlimited talk and text and 1 G of data I'm going to take it. I'm also on the road for at least four months of the year, so that makes a difference too. Before I changed my cell plan, I had 1500 landline minutes (to share--- only counted on weekdays before 7 and unlimited to any cell).
My cable company keeps trying to sell me a landline but I refuse. I also get junk mail from Verizon about 4 times a week trying to sell me a landline. I have no idea what they'd charge because it's something I was never interested in having. They've even come to my door before.
None of my (similar aged) friends have landlines. In fact I don't know anyone under 50 that has one unless it's a very rural area.
kiva
(4,373 posts)would much rather talk on a landline, so I guess it's just a matter of preference.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Being good with money is a skill that can be taught. Allowing others to have more "luck" through government programs would also go a long way.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)
kcr
(15,320 posts)aren't the middle class.
madville
(7,412 posts)That's defined as middle class on everything I've seen.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)Every day I come into contact with middle schoolers who have way nicer cell phones than I do. Mine is a piece of crap, but it's all I can afford. Parents indulge these kids with the latest and greatest. The bills must be enormous, and I can't help but think that a smartphone with every bell and whistle out there is not a necessity for a 12-year-old.
former9thward
(32,082 posts)Not parents. Being friends is much easier and almost always a huge mistake.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)A kid without the latest model phone is made to feel inferior. It's vicious out there.
JI7
(89,276 posts)latest thing out .
TBF
(32,102 posts)check, check, check, and checkeroo ...
There couldn't possibly be systemic problems. It couldn't possibly be a result of the biggest gap between high earners and low earners in the past 100 years. It couldn't possibly be because we bailed out the investment bankers and let millions of poor Americans take the hit.
Couldn't possibly be any of that ...
merrily
(45,251 posts)By other standards, your grandparents were not "solid middle class" at all, but people of modest means. Things cost less. To name just one thing, TV was free, once you paid for the set. Heating your home was a lot cheaper and so on. Jobs were a lot more plentiful. People willing to work hard and live without many perks could do so, without going cold or hungry or homeless.
As far as that million, they're blessed not to have lost most of it in the crash of 2008, as did many elders and people in mid life.
As far as technology, we are probably way overcharged for that, too. Once, people wanted to make a living, not a killing. That is now not the goal.
Believe me, I understand what you are saying. However, I put more blame on the top 10% than I do on the rest of us.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)and I scrimp and save" post.
I think your post is irrelevant here. We are talking about incomes that don't match the cost of living.
Sure some people live above their income but that is beside the point here.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If you are living paycheck by paycheck or would end up on the street in 3 months if you didn't have your job you are in the NEW middle class.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)and I think many others too... The numbers of poor people and people in poverty don't take into account the number of people who as Fox News likes to remind us, have a microwave and a refrigerator, an Xbox and cable TV, but could be without those things in less than 2 months due to one medical disaster or job loss.
It also doesn't take into account how many people are "living together", I know lots of grown kids with families of their own moving back in with their parents, and kids living with their parents till they are 30 or so...
Politicians, and the people who make money off of politics in one way or another, don't have any grasp of the "real world", and if things don't change it's going to come back and bite them on the ass...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Almost everyone likes to think of himself or herself as "middle class." Wake up, folks. It's not true and hasn't been true since the US lowered taxes on the rich.
CrispyQ
(36,527 posts)Now everyone is maxed out on their credit & the only way to keep the economy going is to give even more credit. Who were the morans who thought of this? Oh yeah, the trickle down crowd, who are all above us & don't get trickled on. Fuckers, everyone.
We have managed to stay out of the credit trap and actually have savings, but I have dealt with a lot of comments & questions over the years about why we don't have nicer stuff. My mother actually told my sister that she thought we probably had a serious drug problem, cuz, "What else are they doing with their money?"
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Wall Street CEOs.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)It's all bull. Tax preferences have changed and support wealth. Look at your utility bills, look at your property taxes, look at your store receipts. The amounts we're paying for taxes are crippling when you're on a fixed income, and anyone working at service jobs is basically on a fixed income, just like retirees without the health insurance. If you need prescriptions, you're screwed, no money left for that necessity.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)to keep the working poor poor.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)madville
(7,412 posts)The article says everyone between the 25th and 75th percentile. Well that's like $26,000-$77,000 a year, that's a pretty broad range to define as "middle class". Plus it all depends where you live. I can live very well on $50,000 a year in rural South Georgia but I would starve trying to live on that amount in San Francisco or Manhattan.
merrily
(45,251 posts)in a safe neighborhood in Boston proper (assuming there is such a thing) is no bargain, either, just not quite as expensive as the highest-priced areas of Manhattan.
(Just a pet issue with me. I've lived in both Manhattan and Boston and have had this discussion with many who never left Manhattan and insist they pay more for everything than anyone anywhere. It's just not true.)
I certainly take your point about geography making a big difference in costs, though. On the other hand, geography often also makes a big difference in how much you earn, unless you are self employed. Even if self employed but customers are all local, geography also limits how much you can charge. But housing is usually the biggest nut to crack and it is much cheaper to live in a nice home in rural Georgia than in Manhattan or Boston or any large city, esp. in the Northeast, where populations are very dense and space is very tight.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)My family's Middle-Class house from 1952 to NOW is a Cape Cod of less than 900 sq. feet. TINY kitchen. No AC when I was growing up. No garage or even carport.
We ate well. Went to the Jersey Shore and NYC often, either in our one car (Ford station wagon) or bus. Even belonged to the local country club for middle-managers of my father's place of employment.
So maybe expectations have changed. I know mine have.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I'm not married or live with anyone. I have my own car.
More than one car is a necessity for both, especially when both halves of a couple work. He needs to get to work as does she. What if they work in opposite directions? In most parts of the country, mass transit is not adequate enough. My sister and BIL have one car between them, but they live in a big city that has mass transit. It would not work in most suburban neighborhoods.
In 1952 I was not around (my parents were toddlers then). But in that day and age, Dad worked and Mom stayed home. Things were within walking distance, and it would be years before Wally World killed Main Street.
And in many areas, those 900 square foot houses are being torn down and replaced with McMansions.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)We only had 1 bathroom and 1 second hand car. None of my friends lived any differently. We were very middleclass. Never ate out. I walked a lot.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)survival while the rich think about how to enjoy their wealth, but neither concern themselves where they are according to a schedule or list .
Calista241
(5,586 posts)It's probably a combination of cost and lower effective wages that have priced a lot of people out of a college education.
I've written about this before, but in the late 90's, my college cost around 15k / year, which I thought was exceptionally expensive. Today, my school charges upwards of 40k / year now for tuition, which is just crazy. I have serious doubts that the school has drastically increased the quality of the education in just 15 years. They do have a couple new Club Med style buildings though.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Times are still tough for a lot of folks, especially those in the middle class. No one is helping us.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)Not lavish ones, just in the US. I go on my own, since I'm childfree. I make less than $40k a yr too.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)What do they base six months savings on ?
Six full months take home sitting in the bank ?
Six months worth of bill paying power ?
I would see most any but the 1%ers having a problem keeping half a years salary tucked away in a bank for 'just in case'. Half a year salary for myself personally I could never sock away and not use, too many little emergencies like no overtime this payday type events.
Travelman
(708 posts)The idea is that if your job evaporates on you suddenly one day, then you've got enough to keep on living the exact same lifestyle for three to six months while you hunt for another job.
Now, who actually has that? Practically no one. And though it's been a target ideal for a very long time, I very sincerely doubt there has ever been a case where even, say, 20% of the working public has had that much saved up in a "rainy day fund" (and that's almost certainly an extremely generous percentage; I'd actually be surprised if even 10% of the population had ever had that much saved). And the reality on the ground is that if my job disappears on me, I'm DEFINITELY not continuing the same lifestyle. I'm going on ramen noodles pretty much immediately, shutting off the cable, etc., etc. to make that money stretch even if I had that much saved up, because the reality is that I just don't know when I'm going to be able to get a job again.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)was a single trip to Niagara Falls with my housemate, and I mainly went along to take care of the two dogs, since she wanted to take them along, so that she and her parents could get out and do touristy things. Oh wait, I lie, I just remembered I took a trip up to Port Huron with some friends a couple of decades back, in college. Every other trip I can remember was either for school or a 'family vacation' with one or both parents.
Never had a new car, my current vehicle is a '95, so 19 years old and held together by rust.
Debtwise, I'm under 20k principle on the mortgage, and my other debt is pretty much all personal, not institutional, so I'm not being killed with interest...
Emergency savings? Nonexistent.
Retirement? Nonexistent.
Medical care? On medicaid, thanks to Obamacare.
Dental work? Got about a third of a missing molar that needs a crown, but I can't even afford to get a filling, so it's been a gaping hole for about 8 or 9 months now, I think.
But then, given that I've been below the poverty line the last 5-6 years, I guess maybe I'm not middle class any more either. C'est la America.
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)this. I have been preaching this for a long time now. sooner or later it must hit home. A lot of people are just now feeling the cascading effect of the economic downturn. they have no clue that their job is tied directly to the economy and the people purchasing power in it.
Wounded Bear
(58,721 posts)
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Wages, not so much.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That, despite the inability of the BLS to actually find significant inflation, "prices are soaring"?
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Prices ate definitely up. Rent too -- at least around here.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)Chicken hasn't gone up as much. Pork is higher but not like beef. $3 cauliflower is the new normal. Most other produce seems to be about the same price. Seafood up about $1 to $2/pound.
merrily
(45,251 posts)So, like so much in American society today, the statistics favor people who actually believe that things like airline tickets and cars are part of normal living costs.
Meanwhile, people who have no choice but to try to live on Social Security and don't even think about airline tickets or cars simply can't believe the govt has been claiming little to no inflation for years.
A partner I once had used to say, "Figures lie and liars figure." Not entirely true, but not entirely false, either.
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)Back in the days of the Y2K scare, a can of tuna and a pound of rice were both going for 3/dollar.
Now it's 1/1 on superspecial.
Are most Americans able to sequester for 21 days if need be?
Apart from prepper sects (such as the Mormons), I doubt it.
Can people afford to flood the stores and "shop for a month"?
Often the answer is "if you (or yours) can't stand to live on peanuts and ramen", no.
Initech
(100,104 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)If Bill Gates gets a $10 a week allowance and 9 other kids get nothing, the average kid gets $1/week. Median and mode values are both $0, though. What are median and mode values for debt? Can we even assume that there isn't a bimodal (or more) distribution?
There was a major panic about "average" IQ scores of army recruits in WW I. It was something like 65, which would imply that most would not be able to understand how to maintain their weapons. A closer look revealed a bimodal distribution, with one mode near 0 and the other near 100. Seems that the people who understood what was going on and were able to read English scored just about what you would expect of an average population. Immigrants who could not read English and had no clue what was being asked of them got 0. Mush both sets of numbers together to get 65.
This is not to say that all kinds of debt isn't a real problem--just that we need a clearer picture of what is actually going on.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Permanently lowering expectations and blaming the bottom 90% for almost everything is fine for her and the rest of the CNBC crowd, but has no place at DU. JMO.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
Most members of the middle class suffer from Republican policies such as corporate tax breaks and the stoking of the subprime mortgage crisis.
