Goodbye Middle Class

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: JHZR2




So to respond to the second part of the commentary, dont they deserve a decent wage... They surely do. And they surely get it. Work at McDonalds for $7.25 an hour and over the standard 2087hr man-year, you bring in $15130. That's above the poverty line for a family of two from here:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

Does it mean it will go far? Absolutely not! But it means that someone earning $20/hr, roughly $40k/yr is WELL above the poverty line. So define decent wage? Does this mean a roof over your head and nutritious food in the stomach? If so, it is doable. If it is supposed to mean 20 MPG car an cell and cable and 74 in the winter and 65 in the summer, perhaps we have a little bit of a discrepancy.

It may mean discomfort and a lot of hard work to move from those conditions, but hard work is what it takes. Settle into the modern "I deserve it" mindset, and the work that is being performed goes nowhere but to the marketers and make them rich.

A little more Dave Ramsey, a little less MTV, IMO.



So poverty is our line huh? Maybe you think $ 7.25 an hour is doable and living but I don't. I call that surviving not living. Maybe for a kid in school or a second income for a spouse maybe.

A decent wage in my opinion would be at a bare minimum $ 10.00 an hour with benefits for one person. Much higher if you are raising a family.

So nice to talk about the poverty line and surviving when some CEO's make more in a one day than the average American makes in a year. Or in this case more in a few hours than poverty people make in a year.

If hard work means college degrees than many will never make it. If hard work means hard work than many do that already working 2-3 jobs to try and get by and live a fairly comfortable life. Yes having a car, cell phone, cable does make life more comfortable. That may mean a ratty car and cheap cell phone. It is no fun having nothing and watching others have theirs.


Where did I say that at $7.25 an hour they would expect the lap of luxury? I didnt.

Nor did I say it was good/right for a CEO's 40 hours to be worth thousands of times their laborer's wage.

You are saying bare minimum is $10/hr? I was hinting at $20/hr to be more like it... And that gets you a roof over the head and food on the table. I know people in NJ, a very expensive state, getting by on $40k a year, which is roughly $20/hr.

Do they live in the lap of luxury? No. But nobody deserves luxury. That has been my point all along. Everyone should have nutritious (not processed) food and a roof over their heads. Some level of heat in the winter. Not necessarily even AC. Beyond that most everything is a luxury. Heck, living in the suburbs miles away from one's job is a luxury. Did people do that 200 years ago?

So beyond that it is all about how one manages their money, works hard to move up in life and in situation. That may mean saving harder than the next guy and working harder than him too. So be it. There are no guarantees.

But the reality is this. CEOs making excessive compensation, especially when offshoring US jobs is IMO wrong. Excessive downward pressure on wages because of the threat of offshoring is wrong. But the benefit, especially in the USA, is that if you do work hard, with good ethic, then you will do "well". Maybe that means being able to afford a car and a microwave (people were happy with those two 30 years ago). Maybe a cellphone and basic cable. Maybe more. If you are the best darn ____________ (insert vocation here), even if not college-degreed, you will do well. Machinists, tool and die experts, plumbers, electricians, etc. all can do quite well.

Nobody can help the next guy if they dont have the aptitude or capability to be the best in their field.

If one machinsit was better than the other, would you also advocate that the better machinist be given less pay so that the worse one can have a more decent wage?

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: ZZman

I would define Middle class as about $ 30-100,000 a year. Upper middle above that.

Per family? That's pretty low.

Middle-class in the Bay Area should be well over 100,000/yr per family.


$100,000 to $150,000 per family is middle class ($50-75K per spouse) is an average income in America. Really nothing special or impressive.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: ZZman

I would define Middle class as about $ 30-100,000 a year. Upper middle above that.

Per family? That's pretty low.

Middle-class in the Bay Area should be well over 100,000/yr per family.


$100,000 to $150,000 per family is middle class ($50-75K per spouse) is an average income in America. Really nothing special or impressive.




Not even close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Without feeling like doing any research, I bet it isn't any higher now.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: ZZman

I would define Middle class as about $ 30-100,000 a year. Upper middle above that.

Per family? That's pretty low.

Middle-class in the Bay Area should be well over 100,000/yr per family.


Middle class here is probably about 80k-250k per family. Not everyone drives BMW and MBZ with kids in private schools.

But the bare minimum living wage is probably about 60k per family, below that you are going to be eating ramen noodle every meal and renting somewhere that you cannot park a car for free.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: ZZman

We have to remember that all members of working society play an important roll. Not everyone can be doctors, lawyers, wall street types etc....There are other just as important "lower class" jobs that keep society running smoothly and keeps us happy by providing services we all enjoy and need.

Should they not also deserve a decent living?



Who decides what someone "deserves" or not? That can be code for entitlement.

Your labor, skill or talent is worth what it's worth. Sure, not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, network engineer, etc. But not everyone has to be trapped in the cycle of poverty either.

If your mind is not your forte, work with your hands. Learn a trade. Become an electrician, plumber, pipe fitter, stone mason, line man for the power or phone company. There are still jobs that pay well that cannot be outsourced because you work on the infrastructure.

Not everyone can or should go to college, or at least not a 4 year degree. There are many good (and bad) 2 year programs where you can learn a skill. I'm not talking about ITT tech, or some place of questionable value. There are many good community colleges where one can learn a skill and for a lot less coin than a four year degree program.

And if you are poor, you can probably get assistance to pay for it.

So why aren't people flocking to these programs rather than sitting on the porch of their section 8 house, or trailer, smoking a blunt, working on a bottle or downing a 40oz waiting for the next check?

 

[Mr Nice]

3311,

Different areas/neighborhoods make different income levels. Its more accurate to look at the median household income of a certain city verses looking at the median income of an entire State or entire Country.

Sure I could live like a roach on $15,000 per year in a trailer park town in Hillbilly FL and eat crackers for breakfast, lunch and dinner but I choose not to live that type of lifestyle.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
3311,

Different areas/neighborhoods make different income levels. Its more accurate to look at the median household income of a certain city verses looking at the median income of an entire State or entire Country.

Sure I could live like a roach on $15,000 per year in a trailer park town in Hillbilly FL and eat crackers for breakfast, lunch and dinner but I choose not to live that type of lifestyle.




Valid points but you said "America" in your post.

 

[ZZman]

Are the working poor leaches on society? Are people working 2-3 jobs to get by leaches on society? No one said people should have the same or better lifestyle than you UM. There will always be inequality. But does it have to be so large? If we lose the middle class we lose alot.

Does the person flipping burgers at Mcdonalds 40 hrs a week not work hard? (I wouldn't want to do it)

Wow isn't it funny how we see middle class differently? My family would feel really good making 100,000 a year with both of us working. Rich making 150-200,000.

Remember there are only so many good or high paying jobs to go around. They are finite. If everyone trained to be professionals, skilled trades and white collar workers and could find those jobs who would do all the other important jobs that grease the wheels of civilization?

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
3311,

Different areas/neighborhoods make different income levels. Its more accurate to look at the median household income of a certain city verses looking at the median income of an entire State or entire Country.

Sure I could live like a roach on $15,000 per year in a trailer park town in Hillbilly FL and eat crackers for breakfast, lunch and dinner but I choose not to live that type of lifestyle.


+1. Any attempt to define a middle class income is going to vary from place to place, simply because the costs of living vary so much depending on where you are.

The $40,000-$100,000 figure he initially mentioned would have been about right for here - a few years ago. Since then minimum wage has shot up to $10/hr and with that, price increases in different areas inevitably followed. I wouldn't even know where to ballpark it now, as costs are still very much in play, and part of that is due to rising energy costs as well that have been driving prices up too. Unfortunately, even when we get a break there, the price hikes elsewhere stay right where they are.

Cost of living raises have not been keeping pace with minimum wage increases, nor are jobs that paid above minimum wage already, following the same trend upward. The only exception is in jobs that paid above the previous minimum wage, but not above the current level. They increased their pay to remain above it, but not in a proportional manner; i.e., when minimum wage was $8/hr and they paid $9.50/hr, with it now at $10 they've just bumped their wage up a few cents above it.

Personally, I don't know how anyone could survive on minimum wage even at $10/hr. Emphasis on the survive. I'm not talking luxuries, but just being able to afford the bare essentials: rent, utilities, food, and clothing. I include a phone of some type in 'utilities' (not a luxury item from my POV, this is not the 1950s anymore), but exclude cable and internet.

I'm part of the middle class (or its current version of it anyway), and I don't have cable tv or satellite. I also elect to drive an older car that I do my own maintenance on, as well as whatever required repairs that are within my ability and what I have to work with to do them in (my driveway). I don't feel that I'm 'missing out' in anyway, or am somehow deprived of luxury items that I'm somehow entitled to (neither feel deprived, nor entitled).

But I'm maybe the rare breed who has no interest in keeping up with the Jones, and prefer to avoid excess spending (including acquisition of "things") and stick to a pretty basic lifestyle. It naturally irks me when I see people on the dole reaming the system and living the good life when I've worked since I was legally old enough to do so (16, but did other kinds of work before I was even 13, like baby sitting), at times 2 jobs, and at other times 1 salaried job that required the same number of hours that 2 would require.

I can understand why the system is there and why we need it. I don't mind contributing to it - to me its part of the same social contract that funded my public education well before I could legally work and pay taxes into the system. I do mind the abuse, however, as that doesn't make me feel like I'm contributing my fair share - it makes me feel like I'm getting ripped off and taken for a ride.

And that applies to both ends of the welfare scale: personal and corporate. I've always had to work to attain the things I do have, and having earned them I appreciate them and consider them investments.

That is part of the problem with handouts: when something isn't earned, it isn't appreciated; instead it fosters a culture of entitlement. This is why I'd like to see the system have in place the reforms it desperately needs. Better to provide a hand up that is aimed at making people productive, contributing members of society, than a hand out where no reciprocal gain is attained - beyond keeping them inline so they don't revolt or turn to crime (other than the existing abuses that all rip the tax payer off).

-Spyder

 

[dwendt44]

There are few, if any, $7.25 per hour jobs at any fast food place, McDonald's included, that get 2080 hrs. Most all those low wage jobs are part time. Wal-mart included as well.
Managers may get 40/52, the hired help doesn't.

 

[Shannow]

It was reported in Oz media that McDonald's US are having a big employment drive to get the majority of their casual staff below 20 hours, to avoid the benefits owed over 20.

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: ZZman

I would define Middle class as about $ 30-100,000 a year. Upper middle above that.

Per family? That's pretty low.

Middle-class in the Bay Area should be well over 100,000/yr per family.


Cost of living. Low middle class here might mean 25k / year for a couple. Anything over 100k / year is low upper class to most here.

My wife and I have alot of nice things, like a 3/2 brick house in a nice neighborhood, a newer car/truck, etc. If you knew what we lived off of, you'd be impressed.

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: ZZman

I would define Middle class as about $ 30-100,000 a year. Upper middle above that.

Per family? That's pretty low.

Middle-class in the Bay Area should be well over 100,000/yr per family.


Middle class here is probably about 80k-250k per family. Not everyone drives BMW and MBZ with kids in private schools.

But the bare minimum living wage is probably about 60k per family, below that you are going to be eating ramen noodle every meal and renting somewhere that you cannot park a car for free.



I realize you're in CA, but WE (spouse and myself) make less than 60k per year TOTAL. In the last 3 years we have purchased a house (a nice one at that), car, paid off my truck, and remodeled the house, my wife is finishing school for 2 bachelor degrees, etc. Our debt besides the house is minimal (under 10k).

It CAN be done in the right aspects. We had to make several sacrifices, such as no paid TV service, no land line phone, no Internet service, no dining out, and many other eliminations.

We don't eat noodles. We eat very well, but we cook all of our meals.

You have to prioritize what is valuable to you and you'd be amazed on what you can own and live off of.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
I realize you're in CA, but WE (spouse and myself) make less than 60k per year TOTAL. In the last 3 years we have purchased a house (a nice one at that), car, paid off my truck, and remodeled the house, my wife is finishing school for 2 bachelor degrees, etc. Our debt besides the house is minimal (under 10k).

It CAN be done in the right aspects. We had to make several sacrifices, such as no paid TV service, no land line phone, no Internet service, no dining out, and many other eliminations.

We don't eat noodles. We eat very well, but we cook all of our meals.

You have to prioritize what is valuable to you and you'd be amazed on what you can own and live off of.



Thank goodness. Someone with some sense and self control with their spending.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: bigmike

I realize you're in CA, but WE (spouse and myself) make less than 60k per year TOTAL. In the last 3 years we have purchased a house (a nice one at that), car, paid off my truck, and remodeled the house, my wife is finishing school for 2 bachelor degrees, etc. Our debt besides the house is minimal (under 10k).


Yes, very true. That's why a lot of businesses are leaving CA bay area because the cost of living (mainly housing) is very high right here and if you not absolutely need to live here, you'll for sure find life much easier elsewhere even if you take a 30-50% pay cut.

For those of us whose job hub are in this area, we just have to tighten our belly and pick between school district, home size, or commute distance. You can try to save the rest of the living expense, but it will only make a tiny dent (like 1/10 of mortgage) in comparison. Timing the real estate market when you buy and not to over buy, is the key to affordable lifestyle.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
It was reported in Oz media that McDonald's US are having a big employment drive to get the majority of their casual staff below 20 hours, to avoid the benefits owed over 20.

Not quite. They had to get a waiver from the Unaffordable Care Act so as to be able to continue giving people healthcare insurance.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Does the person flipping burgers at Mcdonalds 40 hrs a week not work hard? (I wouldn't want to do it)

But you want McDonald's to pay a "living wage". The point of jobs like this are to get people working experience so they can move on to other things. Not to be stuck flipping burgers all their life.

Increasing the minimum wage blocks out the unskilled, keeping them from being productive in society. This effect was intentional when minimum wage laws were first introduced:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/10/100215-4.htm

The Davis-Bacon Act, regarding prevailing wage, was passed to squeeze blacks and other minorities out of the construction workforce .
http://www.ij.org/about/861

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
This is why I'd like to see the system have in place the reforms it desperately needs.

What would you consider the metrics to decide whether or not a given program is "successful"?

Quote:
That is part of the problem with handouts: when something isn't earned, it isn't appreciated; instead it fosters a culture of entitlement.

That is intentional. Keeps the votes rolling in from the people dependent on the program.

 

[ZZman]

Originally Posted By: Temp
Does the person flipping burgers at Mcdonalds 40 hrs a week not work hard? (I wouldn't want to do it)

But you want McDonald's to pay a "living wage". The point of jobs like this are to get people working experience so they can move on to other things. Not to be stuck flipping burgers all their life. A decent wage like any job should. It serves a purpose in society. If someone likes doing it and wants to do it all their life so what?

What other jobs that are meanial in your mind are starter jobs people should move out of? Store clerks? Janitors? Trash men? Cab drivers? what?

Increasing the minimum wage blocks out the unskilled, keeping them from being productive in society. This effect was intentional when minimum wage laws were first introduced:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/10/100215-4.htm Your article said that was the goal back then. I doubt most would agree that is the reason now.

The Davis-Bacon Act, regarding prevailing wage, was passed to squeeze blacks and other minorities out of the construction workforce .
http://www.ij.org/about/861 I agree this is ridiculous. I don't advocate union wages but decent wages. The main problem with this is you get people hooked on making good money and then pull the rug out from under them when the job is done.

 

[greenaccord02]

Minimum wage needs to be a living wage if it's worked full time. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks about it, that's all some people can get and it's a [censored] of a lot better than them being on welfare.