$97.000 is middle class in the most blue cities in America

[Herman Munster]

New York. Los Angeles. San Francisco. Boston. Washington D.C.

Places where the median house or condo is $500k. You better believe $97,000 is middle class. $50,000 is abject poverty.

[Deja Q]

1. But it would be manna from heaven in Mumbai...

[Girlieman]

12. Mumbai doesn't count

It's filled with Brown people.

Hey, there's a restaurant in NYC that serves a dessert that costs only $25,000. We should be proud of that.

Ever wonder why none of the presidential candidates are asked questions like:

"What would you do to eliminate poverty?"

or

"What would you do about the disgrace that the United States is the only industrialized country without national health care?"

Truth be told, $97,000 is a pretty good cut off for middle class. It's time the American "middle class" realize that they are in fact working class, or lower. Maybe they will stop voting like millionaires.

[OHdem10]

28. I think most people understand --depending on where

one lives 97,000 can mean very different things to different people.

In NYC, where I have never lived but my daughter lived there for
a year the cost of living is very different from--let's say Mobile Ala.

All that 6% illustrates is the disparity in Incomes.

Think of the Hundreds and Hundredso of Millionnaires and Billionaires.

However when you form a Table for a chart


The Median Income is 38,000 (I heard this had dropped lower but did not
have time to research so we go with 38,000. Half the country makes
38,000 and above. Half the country makes 38,000 and below.

75% of the country makes 70, 000 and below---3/4 of the country.

This leaves the top 25 %

This is how on economic charts the person making 97,000 falls into
the top or upper Income Group.

We can thank Free Trade---this disparity gets worse annually and it
will continue to worsen as the dislocations (job) occur in every
occupation even Doctors.

This is also why we must start being concerned with the common good.
There will be times we may all need assistance to get throgh tight
times.

Other advanced countries have Unemployment Insurance, Health Care
Pensions and Care for Aging. We rugged Individualists highly
self-sufficient will need to get real creative or decide that
old fashioned idea of Social Justice and the Common Good may
not be such a bad idea afte all.

[Deja Q]

29. "Globalization". In which case everything must count or the term is a minsnomer.

A misnomer in favor of "migration", "abandonment", "store closing sale", you name it. If scientists and engineers are so important, why are America's being dumped, if the articles proclaiming the hottest offshoring trends have any valor whatsoever? Does America no longer exist, except to be hated by the very countries that love to take our jobs (and whose own cost of living gives them a grossly unfair advantage)?

Besides, Hillary as a (if not the most popular) popular candidate makes India more relevant than ever. Last time I checked, India is not the 51st state and we elect politicians to help our citizens. Globalization can only work so far; it's clear local economies are still just as relevant now as they were 50+ years ago.

Depending on the city one lives in, $97k is a good deal. But as you said, it's not so hot in Manhattan and other posh cities.

And if globalization isn't hurting Americans so badly, then I'd have no reason to be against it. (So shove the "brown people" insinuation; I'm talking the economic reality whose repercussions will hurt America and Americans. There are only so many reasons for the failure of the dollar, and if H1B-heavy Bill Gates could "predict" the dollar's fall three years ago, while asking for more H1Bs and offshoring perks, there has to be more to what's going on than mere "profiteering". Oh, do you believe in "peak oil" like how I don't? (Talk about a spanner in the works...))

[yourout]

31. Muppets were my favorite show......Losing Jim Hensen that young was a tragedy.

Extraordinarily creative person.

[asdjrocky]

2. Sorry, don't mean to be rude....

But that's a load of crap.

[Herman Munster]

4. really?

Try living in manhattan on $97k a year after city, state, and federal income taxes. See how much fun it is with a family or kids in college.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Why would anyone want to?

I hear this "middle class depends on where you live" too much. Federal tax policy is written with one tax code. An individual who makes $97,000 per year makes more than 94% of his/her countrymen.

The top 6% is upper class. If you can't afford Manhattan or San Francisco - move.

There are worse crosses to bear than to be forced to live among the rest of us.

[Carni]

13. If you are making that much per year....

Then why don't you have star after your SN?

You can't part with 5.00?

[depakid]

17. The middle class doesn't live in Mahattan

or most of Malibu.

Choices of areas to live are an index of affluence- every bit as much as one's gross income is.

[asdjrocky]

34. So I guess that's where 6% of the people live?

Dude, I've lived in both NYC and SF and LA in my life. There in those places, 97k might be middle class. No where else. By the way, when I lived in those places I did not make 97k, and I never starved or wanted for a place to live. Seriously, how stupid do you think we are?

[sandnsea]

3. If the top 6% of the country live in cities

Do you have those figures?

[Eric J in MN]

5. For a single person with no dependents? NT

NT

[Herman Munster]

6. single person with no dependents it's middle class in manhattan

studios are $2k a month, dude. 1 br's are close to $3k a month.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. And housing expenses are *supposed* to be only 1/3 of your take-home (good luck with that!)

[Carni]

16. Boo fucking hoo

I feel for you...no really, I do.

[Selatius]

19. Man, I'd move myself off Manhattan Island just so I could save more money for retirement.

97,000/year and most of it is locked up in rent and local taxes? I'd move if I were in that situation, especially if I had no dependents.

[Egnever]

7. you just pull that out of your ass or what?

The San Francisco median household income is $57833 and the median family income, at $67809 in 2005, is the third-highest for any large city in the nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_San_Francisco,_California


In California, the median household income was $53,629 in 2005. And five California cities were among the 10 wealthiest nationwide: San Jose's median household income was $70,560, San Francisco's $57,496, San Diego's $55,637, Anaheim's $52,158 and Riverside's $50,416.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/30/MNGMPKRNOT1.DTL

and thats household income which isnt even close to individual income that this whole bruhaha is based arround.

Perhaps you are confusing combined household income with individual income which is what SS is based on.

[Herman Munster]

10. I look at rents, cost of real estate, and after-tax disposable income

I don't consider living in studios or with roommates when you are making $50K+ a year a comfortable middle class lifestyle.

[Egnever]

11. so you are making this up as you go along then...

Cause all the census data seems to say you are full of it.

[Herman Munster]

14. go look at the rents in manhattan and SF

Just do the math yourself. The quality of life is definitely not what you would consider middle class. Just because the median income is lower than $97,000 doesn't mean those people live well.

[Selatius]

22. You can blame cities for part of that problem. Up in Boston, they eliminated rent control.

The city council is dominated by Democrats, but apparently they're right wing Democrats for deciding several years back that it's bad business to keep rent control laws in place.

[Egnever]

27. So your argument has nothing to do with real income

Its purely your judgement of what middle class should mean.

The fact that only 6% of the nation earns that much or more clearly means that they are the midle.....

:eyes:

[AX10]

15. Heck, even Philadelphia is 97k is middle class.

Just sayin.....

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. I live on Long Island, want to talk middle class and housing prices?

My parents make about $97,000 a year, combined.

They've been able to afford a nice house in the suburbs.

Each, individually, is middle class. Combined, they're upper middle class.

If you make $97,000 individually, you're wealthy, not middle class.

If you have two individuals making $97,000 each, that's not middle class anymore.

[Herman Munster]

23. when did they buy their home?

Things were different 30 years ago. Things were different 10 years ago. Right when Bush got in offie is when things went to hell. I mean give me a fucking break. Look at what a 1 br fucking apartment costs in Manhattan.

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1008886


Price $799,000
Maint/CC $766
Taxes $550 (monthly)

Rooms 3
Beds 1
Baths 1.5
Type Condo
Doorman yes
Approx. Sqft 728

[tkmorris]

24. Yeah, and so?

Since when do middle-class people expect to be able to buy a condo in Manhattan? Housing in Manhattan is the absolute extreme nationwide, and you know that. In such a situation I would anticipate that only the wealthiest can afford it, so that example proves nothing.

[Selatius]

25. That's the fucking Upper West Side of Manhattan Island. That's not middle-class land, there.

Manhattan Island is no place for middle class folks. That island is where the rich play. Upper West/Upper East side is very rich.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. the current one, 15 years ago.

My fiancee and i are looking at condos. We'll probably take out a mortage for one that costs around $300,000.

We'll both make, combined, about $100,000 a year.

I would consider us to be jointy, upper middle class. Individually, we're middle class.

[nightrider767]

20. Well Maybe combined, family income

But isn't SS tax calculated on individual income?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. "middle class" is not supposed to denote either median income or hardship

Since americans believe that anyone who is between poor and rich is middle class (an asinine view, but almost universal in the USA)
then a family of two is "middle class" if they make anywhere between $13,690 and about $500,000.

So it's a meaningless phrase as used in America.

Properly, the middle class is the bourgeoise... the strata between working class and the capitalists. That's professionals and small business owners (and high level bureaucrats and business executives), and 97,000 is certainly not an outlandish income by the standards of a doctor or a small businessman with employees.

Everyone needs to stop pretending that working class people are "middle class." They are not.

Any sensible definition of middle class means someone who is pretty well off.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3727834

[Hardrada]

32. And then there is the countryside and there are the small towns

where there are professionals and farmers and landowners. Those of us who are in the rural areas are harder to categorize particularly when we live close enough to cities to enjoy their amenities and yet have lives of much less stress and expense.
We have a middle class life style at a lower cost. Way out in the boonies, of course, would be different.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. Yes! Hence the need for regional and local distinctions

A small town doctor or restaurant owner is middle class by definition, even though her net income is most likely below that of a plumber in New York.

Middle class is (properly) a class distinction, not a raw income level.

[Extend a Hand]

30. I agree

but I always have a hard time with these threads because if you are making the median or less 97,000 seems like a whole lot of money. There is a VERY big difference between a high earned income and wealth. It would be difficult to support a "middle class" lifestyle and actually save enough to ever become "wealthy" on $97,000/year. In Ohio, two teachers earning the MEDIAN teacher's wage in Ohio earn $94,000/year. Do people here believe that a family with two income earners employed as elementary or high school teachers are "wealthy"?

[Hardrada]

36. That's a good income around here

and they would be at least middle class.

[sjdnb]

35. 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines

2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons
in Family or Household 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $10,210 $12,770 $11,750
2 13,690 17,120 15,750
3 17,170 21,470 19,750
4 20,650 25,820 23,750
5 24,130 30,170 27,750
6 27,610 34,520 31,750
7 31,090 38,870 35,750
8 34,570 43,220 39,750
For each additional
person, add 3,480 4,350 4,000

According to the 2006 UN Human Development Summary:

The world’s 500 richest people have an income
of more than $100 billion, not taking
into account asset wealth. That exceeds the
combined incomes of the poorest 416 million.
Wealth accumulation at the top of the
global income distribution has been more
impressive than poverty reduction at the
bottom. The 2004 World Wealth Report
prepared by Merrill Lynch projects that the
financial asset wealth of 7.7 million “high
net worth individuals” reached $28 trillion
in 2003, with projected growth to $41 trillion
by 2008.

And, as for the so-called 'middle class' they are losing their homes to keep banks from going under as the Feds bail the banks out from under what the foreclosures don't cover. And, are those CEOs losing their homes? Personal assets? Heck no, as always, the government will provide corporate welfare by taking from the avg Joe and making him feel like it is his fault.

[blue neen]

37. Pittsburgh is a very blue city.

$97,000 would be considered higher than middle class income here.