What struck me the most about the thread on the couple making $250,000....

[LiberalLoner]

What struck me the most was the number of people who were saying that basically MOST of us should not have children, not try to own even a modest home, and that things like cable TV and vacations were unimaginable luxuries that only billionaires should be able to have.

It hit me that even here, we have accepted the meme that it's somehow shameful and wrong to live what used to be considered a nice middle-class lifestyle.

The lifestyle we grew up thinking would surely be ours, if only we worked hard, went to college, developed our careers.

Even here on DU, our expectations have been managed to the point where we basically hate people who do have that lifestyle that so many of us grew up thinking we would be able to have.

I got the feeling from reading the posts that we have now come to the consensus that we should all live like impoverished serfs, and that that is proper and good.

I feel as if we've accepted the right-wing meme that none of us deserve a nice lifestyle with some luxuries because none of us deserve it.

And I always felt, ALL of us deserve that lifestyle. Okay, maybe there aren't enough resources to accomplish that....but I remember back when the billionaires didn't own everything, when a family could get by pretty darn well with just one income earner in the household.

I watched Michael Moore's "Capitalism - a Love Story" and it really made sense to me.

We have fallen so far.

And even here, rather than hating those who have pushed all of us down so hard, we seem to hate those few lucky people who do live the lives that we all thought we would be living.

[Orrex]

1. Hmm. Now where did I leave that stuff? Oh, wait--here it is!

:popcorn:

[kentuck]

70. delete

wrong placement

[LiberalLoner]

2. I know, I know, I'm going to be flamed to death, but that's okay...I think it's

something we need to talk about and think about.

I don't mind getting yelled at if it leads to some productive conversation about this.

I read somewhere that if income had kept up with productivity, we would all be making at LEAST twice as much as we make now.

And it seems to me that THAT is the real issue we should be focusing on and fighting against.


I just feel like....a couple who is lucky enough to earn $250,000 in a high-cost urban area isn't really our enemy so much.

I think our enemy is a system that gives CEOs thousands times more in pay than the basic workers. And gives bankers who create nothing but misery, billions of dollars.

[RegieRocker]

3. Did you read my post on the topic?

[LiberalLoner]

5. No, I'm sorry, I didn't see it - forgive me if this is a duplicate of yours. n/t

[WestSeattle2]

44. Quite honestly, $250k for a couple isn't that much of a stretch

at all. Managers where I work earn $115-145k per year; double that and you easily have a $250k household. They don't consider themselves rich by any means.

I remember my father was earning around $60k twenty years ago, which if adjusted for inflation would be about $120k now. He never considered himself rich either.

Anyone who gets up with an alarm clock and trudges off to work, is working class!

I think you're right; though I would add that the enemies list for working class people would include politicians and unelected officials who aid and abet the criminal activities of the financial sector.

[hfojvt]

63. sure they are - NOT

the manager makes $110,154 and the lowest paid person makes $27,951. They are both working class? The manager can afford a $275,000 house, the lowest paid person only a $70,000 house. Who can afford a new car? Who can afford to send their kids to college?

Every year the boad votes on COLAs of about 2-3%. Look at what happens under that scenario at 2%

year - manager - lowest - gap
0 - 110,154 - 27,951 - 82,203
1 - 112,357 - 28,510
2 - 114,604 - 29,080
3 - 116,896 - 29,662
4 - 119,234 - 30,255
5 - 121,619 - 30,860
6 - 124,051 - 31,477
7 - 126,532 - 32,107
8 - 129,063 - 32,749
9 - 131,644 - 33,403
10 - 134,277 - 34,072 - 100,205

The relatively rich get even further ahead. As a board member, I proposed a more equal distribution of raises, what about a fixed amount + 1%? The fixed amout of 20 cents an hour costs the same (to the company) as 1% but it is more equally distributed. The manager gets $400 and the lowest paid gets $400.

Instead of giving $2203 to the manager and $559 to the lowest paid, I proposed giving $1519 to the manager and $697 to the lowest paid. The rest of the board would not hear of it. Shocking to suggest that management get less money. Never mind that because of the increased cost of health insurance, the lowest paid person was actually taking home less money than they did last year, and that was true last year as well (and maybe before that, but I was not on the board then).

The trouble is that the manager can look up and see people much richer, so he does not feel rich, but if he looked down he would see many, many more people much poorer, and RELATIVE to them, he IS rich. He makes almost 4 times as much as the lowest paid person in his company, and also makes 7 times as much as a person making minimum wage. Those are huge gaps. And they get even bigger when one has a spouse who also makes good money.

[justiceischeap]

4. I don't hate many people, and certainly not the fictitious family in this scenario

I do take offense that the writer of the piece chose to highlight the "hardship" of a couple that gets to take a vacation, owns a home, can afford a savings account when there are so many people who are struggling to pay rent and eat, forget about the incidentals. I don't begrudge upper-middle-class folks anything but try and make us feel sorry for people who have it relatively easy in comparison.

[LiberalLoner]

6. Oh, I understand that. That makes sense. When I read the article I guess

I just kept thinking, why don't MOST of us earn that much?

[LiberalLoner]

7. (And I will admit, I would LOVE to have that much income! I am jealous!) n/t

[LiberalLoner]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the American Dream must be deader than dead if

things like having children, going to college, owning a modest house, having cable TV, are unthinkable luxuries out of reach for 95% or more of us.

[justiceischeap]

11. The middle class is a dying thing

Before long, there will be two classes rich and poor. I know that's a cynical point of view but happens to be true.

I have a debate with one of my co-workers all the time about gentrifying neighborhoods and how it's bad for anyone who doesn't make a ton of money but that's a whole other subject that barely relates to what we're talking about here. But basically, my feelings are that eventually we are going to gentrify so many neighborhoods that people like he and I won't be able to find decent places to live because the upper middle class takes over an area, drives the cost of real estate up and forces lower middle class and poorer folks out. Do this enough and we all end up living in tenements (I add that with a flair for the dramatic).

[LiberalLoner]

16. I think it will be even worse than that - it will be lots of empty palaces and most of us

living in tents (if we are lucky) or under scraps of cardboard (if we are not lucky.)

[justiceischeap]

9. I think, in this current climate, the reason we don't make that much is

A) We either don't live in urban areas where incomes tend to be higher based on the cost of living (so, in reality you aren't really making that much) or B) We didn't luck out. Some of it is luck.

I'm making a decent wage compared to what I'm used to but that's only because when I was doing manual labor in the 90s I saw the direction the Internet was going and taught myself how to code HTML. In doing so, I've acquired a skill that will be around for quite some time and, luckily, pays decently (at least in urban areas where the cost of living is so much higher).

[RegieRocker]

12. It was not my post

but let me put it to you this way. What if everyone was paid according to how physical the job was. The more physically demanding the more pay. You see now it is set up for who you know basically. How much you arse kiss and work your way up. Networking is involved also. Telling people how much you like them even though you think they are turds. There is also the side of getting paid more for using your mind. Getting a education etc. Arse kissing and the good ol boy network is still the best way to go for the best paying jobs. So to sum it up. People that don't have the I.Q. that others have and make way less than them and work much much harder than them might just resent that fact. It's not their fault they have a low I.Q. they were born this way. So maybe just maybe we aren't paying these people enough for jobs that we wouldn't do. Does that help?

[LiberalLoner]

14. I agree with you 100%. I think there ought to be a minimum basic lifestyle that is

guaranteed. I saw that in the NL, where construction workers earned a pretty darn good living and there was no sense of shame in making a living with your brawn. Here in the US we seem to have such a snobby way of thinking about some things.

We are just really messed up in some ways in this country.

There are people who really contribute so much to our well-being as a country, and they aren't paid diddly, and it's not fair or right and I wish it would change.

People ask me what I want for our country, and I say, I wish it could be like what I remember from living in the NL in the late 70's.

[RegieRocker]

15. Here here! You have a good heart and mind!

[LiberalLoner]

18. Thank you. The jobs I had that were the hardest, paid the least. I worked as

a dishwasher (long hours, hard on my feet), an enlisted soldier (Basic Training was seriously hard, honestly) and then when I got lucky and got some college, I got jobs that paid better and I just could not believe that jobs that were for me easier to do - paid a lot more than the jobs that just about killed me. It seemed wrong to me then and still seems wrong.

[BridgeTheGap]

8. "They" have managed to remove the entire concept of class consciousness from American life.

Didn't you know? We're just one big happy family here. When our standard of living was high enough for even a working class family to survive on a single income, we were lulled into a false sense of security. We didn't recognize what a threat to the bottom line our lifestyles were. We didn't think we would have to organize to protect that lifestyle. Oh, how wrong we were. The monied elite are far better organized and keenly aware of class differences. They implemented a plan that rolled out with Ronnie Reagan and has been a juggernaut ever since. They've co-opted the Democratic party with lobbyists and campaign cash, pulling "us" ever further to the right, to the point where even Richard Nixon looks like some kind of wild eyed leftist radical. Mass insanity has set in.

[Fumesucker]

10. I don't hate the (fictional) family..

I hate the fact that a family that makes $250,000/year is considered by *anyone* to be "poor".. And that is exactly the way they were portrayed in the original article.

It was an idiotic and insulting premise and rightfully deserved all the scorn heaped upon it.

[LiberalLoner]

13. Oh, I totally agree with you there. I was just struck by the posts that followed about

how irresponsible it is to have children, or cable TV, or buy a home.

[Fumesucker]

20. If poor people were not to have children I imagine that few to none of us would be here..

I mean for real, how many of us have ancestors that were invariably rich?

[HughBeaumont]

17. Used to be you didn't give any thought to the amount of kids you had.

Nowadays, the decision to have one or more children, sadly, weighs heavily on your future financial prospects. Unless they turn out to be a brilliant entrepreneur who invents the next FaceBoook, they're likely going to be headed to a never-decreasing-in-cost college since there aren't any Ford or Steel plants they can go to after HS anymore. And the more you have, the more you're going to be shelling out.

With the average American family already losing job security and any hope of a pension on top of getting so socked with housing, transportation, college, food and utility costs, it's no wonder retirement is being talked about as a relic of the past.

If it can be traced back to one general event, this whole forced lowered lifestyle stems from the simple fact that American wages are simply not keeping up with the ever soaring cost of living, and haven't been doing so since around 1979.

Yet, our media conditions us so well to believe that these less-than-average working conditions in the face of "too-high" expectations can be blamed on one or both of two things: Democratic politicians or ourselves. Never mind the fact that the top 10% of earners now possess 71% of this country's wealth. Never mind that a CEO now makes 400 times what an average worker does. Never mind that since 1979, Milton Freidman's grand bastard vision has been the rule of thumb, or that while this country has moved ever further to the right politically, the wealthy that run it have also shifted a far greater amount of risk onto the worker (401ks, HMOs and HSAs, anyone?) than ever before.

I will never accept that large swaths of people are going to be "left behind". This country CAN accommodate what people need and want, but ubiquitous greed at and crushing suppression from the top of the food chain prevents it from happening.

[LiberalLoner]

19. Plus a million! Thank you for this! n/t

[justiceischeap]

21. Every time I think of Greed, I see Michael Douglas' face as Gordon Gekko (eom)

[TalkingDog]

36. Because until the early 1900's most of them died.

You had a lot of kids to end up with one or two that would breed further.

Increases in hygiene meant more kids survived to breed.

Replace yourself. Don't add to the burden.

[LiberalLoner]

38. I didn't have any kids. Am 50 now. Do not regret my decision. n/t

[TalkingDog]

45. same here

at least until yard work needs doing.

[bettyellen]

58. but also the kids you had were made to help out, and later help support the parents in old age

my parents were from big families in small cottages and they worked the farm, helped spin yarn and embroider as children after a full day of school. or else the family went hungry.

[LiberalLoner]

22. And this is off-topic some, but my grand-niece got mugged for a loaf of bread

and a quart of milk just a few months ago. She was accosted on the street and told to give up her small bag of groceries that could clearly be seen as being only bread and milk. She had no money in her purse as she spent her last dollar on the bread and milk.

What kind of a nation is it that we now have muggings for bread and milk? All the while bankers who are criminals are getting millions in bonuses?

She fought back (maybe not smart...) - she kept her bread and milk. Because that was going to be all the food she and her boyfriend had until the next paycheck.

[Cresent City Kid]

23. What's lost in all this

is that the top one tenth of the top one percent is leaving everyone far behind, including the ones making $250K. Also, the lifestyle available to people making $25,000 per year in the US is like being rich to much of the world. I take the broad perspective on this subject. The fact that we could go from living in caves to livng in suburbs is amazing. Instead of debating whether we deserve or are entitled to a middle class lifestyle, I would like to see us choose as a human civilization a basline of good food, shelter and security for all humans. It's admittedly utopian, and population tends to increase under good conditions stressing the planet. But thinking like this makes it hard for me to delve into discussions about how much someone pays for cable and internet per month.

[LiberalLoner]

26. True. I lived in Egypt as a soldier - I saw true poverty. But the society seemed

to be in general more supportive of its poor people, than what I see here in the U.S. They had far less than us as a society but I felt from what I saw, the inequality levels weren't as great. Or maybe they were and I just didn't see them.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. The problem is with the definition of "rich"

There are some who think teachers are overpaid. Or nurses. Or even custodians.

Yes, $250K/yr salary is big money. Yes, those people could survive on less. Yes, they probobably made some purchases that were about the subsistence level.

But they are not rich.

A millionaire is not rich.

A person with enough wealth to own a nice house (even a McMansion) and have enough set aside to provide for a comfortable retirement is not rich. That person is upper middle class.

Jack Welch is rich.

Trump is still rich.

Gates and Buffet are rich.

The Bushes and the Kennedys are rich (though not nearly as rich as many others).

The myth has been sold to the people that rich is attainable for most of us. This myth serves well the right wing agenda and makes acolytes of those for whom it is their worst enemy. In selling that myth, many on the left bought into it to. The only difference is that for one group, the "rich" represent a goal. For the other group, they represent an enemy.

Neither view is the product of critical thought.

[LiberalLoner]

32. Exactly, thank you. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

54. they're the top 2.9% of families. no, not "rich" compared with rockefellers.

the op didn't describe them as rich.

that wasn't the point.

[Still a Democrat]

25. You're confusing middle class and 250k a year

A modest home, cable TV, kids going to college does not require 250K. You're meshing two different situations. Frankly, it's quite a pipe dream to imagine everyone at the 250k level. Not happening.

I will agree the genuine middle class (probably 45-100k with a few kids) with decent jobs, a home, a modest pension and a few bucks in the bank are becomong rarer and progressives should be fighting that. It should be resonably attainable for about anyone.

[LiberalLoner]

27. A lot of it again depends on where you live. No WAY could a couple making $50,000 in NoVa

or anywhere in the DC metro area, afford kids and even the most modest of shacks. No way. Maybe renting a small apartment in a bad part of town and the kids only going to college on scholarships or with help from the military.

[LiberalLoner]

28. There is a reason the AVERAGE family income in Fairfax County, in Virginia, is over $100,000. n/t

[Still a Democrat]

29. The 250k year couple were clearly beyond middle class

To look at their lifestyle and hold it up as something we all ought to have isn't very realistic.


- MAXIMIZING contributions to two 401K's ($33,000/year)

- paying the $3000/mo mortgage on their house in a neighborhood appropriate for their income class

- paying $10,000 a year for "maintenance & cleaning" of their home

- paying over $5000 a year to park their cars

- $8000 a year saving for their kids' college

- $1583 a month for day care, babysitting, after-school activities, & camp for the kiddies

- paying the medical & dental insurance

- $520 a month for meals not cooked at home

- $246 a month on clothing

- $230 a month on phone, internet, cable

- $4000 a year for the family vacation

- $599 a month on gifts, entertainment, entertaining at home

- $130 a month on the dog

[LiberalLoner]

30. Sure, that's upper middle class for sure - like I said, it's over twice

the average income for this area - but I don't think those families are our enemy. I'm not sure it does us any good to attack them when it's really the upper 1/2 of 1% that are causing the misery from what I can see.

[Still a Democrat]

43. There's a huge difference between 70k and 250k - also between 250k and 2.5M

If you're saying we tend to lump everyone above 250k together unfairly, I'd agree. We also need multiple tax brackets above 250k.

I don't always consider someone making 250k or 2.5M a year as the enemy. They need to conduct themselves responsibly, including paying taxes according to their ability. Many are progressive and I have no issue with them.

I think the main objection was these folks being painted as struggling.

[Hannah Bell]

55. since most couples living in dc metro make far less than $250k a year

they obviously could & do.

median household income in dc = $85K.

It's about double the national average, but it's nowhere near $250K.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/28/pf/household_income_report/index.htm.

other sources say %59K in 2009.

[unblock]

31. you're not really rich until you're in a position to fuck up a lot of lives.

of course there's a difference in housing, transportation, clothing, nourishment, and so on when comparing households at various income/wealth levels (adjusting for various factors such as cost of living and age).

but real wealth and income isn't a matter of having more and shinier toys.
real wealth is about being able to move mountains, to buy and sell companies and thereby affect many other lives.

all the people who are working for a living, no matter what their income level, have FAR more in common with each other than with the elite powers that be who are in a position to crush entire towns, entire industries, and destroy any household they choose with one phone call.

i know it's tempting to divide us based on the quality and quantity of the stuff some of us are chasing, but in the end, it's not about the stuff. it's about the power. in fact, the upper middle class, or whatever you want to call it, arguably chases more and shinier toys precisely because they DON'T really have any more power than people who make far less then them; consequently, the toys are the only things they get afford to help them feel like they've achieved anything, when in fact they haven't.


in this country, a ticket to the big dance costs at least several million bucks in the bank. if you don't have that, you ain't jack.

[LiberalLoner]

33. Thank you, thank you! This is what I was trying to get onto the page and failing to! n/t

[Fumesucker]

34. Actually, *real* wealth is about being able to buy (or at least rent) politicians..

Then you truly have the ability to not only screw up but end lives..

[LiberalLoner]

35. So true. n/t

[HughBeaumont]

49. This really is a good answer, and the subject would make a good T-Shirt.

[eridani]

64. Agreed. I think we should all recognize that there is a difference

--between being affluent and being rich.

[LiberalLoner]

37. At some point in a few decades, I see us hating people who live in tents near streams

as opposed to many of us who will live under cardboard with water from mud puddles to drink.

And in the meantime the billionaires get ever more obscenely wealthy and we focus our rage on people who have it a little better than we do....

[LiberalLoner]

40. But I do understand now why people were upset with the article - it's the rich

controlling the media who are trying to put out the meme, "don't tax those who make over $250,000 because you will hurt this fictional couple..."

And in truth, I DO want to tax billionaires at a higher rate than those who make $250,000 a year. I believe in progressive taxation, I really do. I don't like regressive taxation at all.

[handmade34]

47. interesting thread...

one problem I see is how information about the tax deal was skewed... if the tax cuts had expired, the increase would have been on the money earned OVER $250,000... not really such a big deal.... We are fed such distortions in this country and we are not educated enough, nor as someone earlier said, don't have the critical thinking skills that enable us to assess and make wise choices

[PDJane]

39. We are becoming, or have become,

Brainwashed peons in a system that doesn't value people. A machine can do it faster...although not better. We have efficiency studies to get the most out of the people who run the machines....and it's not a good change.

First of all, there is no such thing as an 'unskilled' job.

The guy who puts together a building, the man who does your furnace and climate control, the woman who gives you your breakfast, the guy who cooks it.......it all takes some kind of concentration and a different skill set.

Secondly, changing the job of humans to make the machines more efficient will..and does...result in more injuries, more emotional problems, more illnesses...and a disconnection with family and society. It's wrong.

Thirdly, if money and things are the only measure of success and happiness, none of us are going to be happy...most of us can't possibly achieve the advertised lifestyle. Almost everything we're supposed to covet, including the many brands of clothes and soap and toothpaste, the buffed and bronzed and perfect bodies and faces and teeth, the fine houses in the suburbs, the newest vehicles and most fashionable toys are manufactured and sold with no respect to the planet's resources, the cost of production, or the lifestyle and usefulness of such articles.

The standard for consumer goods should used to be utility, quality, durability, ability to be reused, retooled and recycled...and beauty.....and that's a better way to look at what we need. We need air and water and food, and it's a personal opinion that water should be free, or nearly so, although the delivery systems aren't. Land to grow food and allow the city dweller a respite should be available to all. Housing ought to be clustered, simply because that is the most efficient way to have it. Holidays and travel should be of longer periods...and spaced in longer periods.

However, none of that comes into the capitalist standard...which all comes back to "How much money can you make for me." That was, essentially, what slavery was. Slave owners were the first capitalists, and it was a bad example.

[LiberalLoner]

41. Profound! Thank you for this reply! n/t

[LiberalLoner]

42. It took the big die-off of the Black Death to give peons some power in their lives....will it

take another massive die-off? I think it will, honestly....sad to think about.

[Javaman]

46. Watch "the corporation" if you really want to be informed. nt

[spinbaby]

48. That struck me, too

In particular, there were a lot of people who were outraged that they put $33,000 a year into retirement savings. Isn't that the responsible thing to do?

The fact is, if you want a comfortable retirement, safe housing, reliable transportation, good medical care, children, dogs, vacations, picket fences, and all the other stuff that constitutes the American dream, then you need to be "rich." When I was growing up in the 60s, you could do all that being middle class.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. I didn't get that at all from that thread

well the OP, I didn't read the whole thread



But the idea that only the top 3% can live the American dream is the problem.

Many families live on one tenth of what that family claims isn't enough.

Go compare how families making $25K a year live and then tell me how bad the one making $250K a year have it.


I'll tell you right now, the one making less works harder, so don't give me any of that "they work hard and deserve it" crap.

[LiberalLoner]

51. What I don't get though, is why have living standards declined so sharply for the

average worker? I think it's because all the wealth is being siphoned up to the top 1% (1/10th of one percent really) and also because of outsourcing of jobs.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

52. They don't have to get a new car every couple of years, either.

I have owned three cars since I started driving in 1977.

I am still driving the third one, a 1994 four door Japanese car.
They were all bought new and worn out. This one has 117K miles on it.

I figure as long as it's mechanically sound and kept up, there's no reason to get a new one. I got a whole new Air Conditioning system recently so that would eliminate the inefficiency from fouling resistance (corrosion and crud in the pipes). And where I live you can't survive without air conditioning.

The time to get another car is when the repair cost, over a year, is equal or greater than the cost of a car payment. That's what Dad told me.

When I was a kid we kept whining about vacations, and never went on any. We wanted to go to Dallas to Six Flags Over Texas, the nearest real amusement park but that might as well have been the other side of the moon. It was 250 miles. We just went to see the grandparents so they could yell at me about not getting up at the crack of dawn to do all those non existent farm chores, and sleeping too much and not eating my grandmother's shitty southern cooking.

[bananas]

53. Here's the thread...

for those of us wondering what the OP was about:
"Down and Out on $250,000 a Year" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=59788&mesg_id=59788

[Rex]

56. 250k ain't middle class and never was.

What a BS post if I've ever seen one. :eyes:

[tranche]

57. 2 unionized police together would be making that much.

Are you saying that unions in this country are creating wealth for people far outside what would be considered middle class?

[Hannah Bell]

59. two unionized police in a high-salary area at the end of their careers, maybe.

few cops in my area make anywhere near $125K. That's the neighborhood where only the chief of police lives.

per this, police/sheriff jobs average $35-$64K.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Police_or_Sheriff's_Patrol_Officer/Salary

NYPD median ranges $76-$103K. "Median" = half make less, half make more.

$103 = median for supervisors & managers.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=New_York_Police_Department_(NYPD)/Salary

[Rex]

66. It seems a few people here on DU have no idea what middle class

or being poor is like or even means. The stupid hypothetical family would win a darwin award and people here are defending said imaginary family as victims, out of idiocy.

[Rex]

65. I seriously doubt you can back that up with facts.

Of course not what bs, I can't believe the hysteria created about a fantasy family that makes 250k a year. Simply ridiculous to call them middle class and everyone on this board knows it. Nice try.

[hfojvt]

60. since when does a modest home cost $300,000?

except in Hawaii. It apparently really sucks to live in Hawaii. I am not sure why they don't just all pack up and move to Bismarck where they can probably get a home for $50,000 (and then pay $3,000 a year to heat it).

Cable TV was simply not part of the American dream when I was growing up, and it still seems like a stupid expense to me.

Vacations? The argument was not about vacations, it was about seeing a $4,000 vacation as some kind of bare necessity.

The other part is that the people who make $300,000 ARE pushing the rest of us down. Where does their money come from? Where does the plumber get the money to buy a big new truck? He gets it from charging US $60 an hour for a service call.

Unlike a CEO who lives far far away in another galaxy we can actually SEE the people in town who make 4 times as much money as us. We can feel their contempt for us, and see the nice cars they drive, the nice houses they live in, the nice clothes they can buy for their kids, etc. From where we sit, they ARE haves.

And there are policy implications too. All the thousands of dollars of tax cuts and other subsidies that goto people making $60,000 - $200,000 mean a loss of revenue and further cuts to funding for secondary education, LIHEAP, food stamps, SSI, etc., etc.

You think somehow the most important thing is for us to have sympathy and affection for people making six figures? :wtf:

[emmadoggy]

61. No flames from me. I had the same thoughts while reading that thread.

That instead of us all complaining that $250,000 isn't poor and that they had many things that most of us don't have and many things they could cut, we should all be looking at the fact that we should ALL be able to have a vacation now and then, and put money away for our retirements and college for our children. Of course, some of the things in the fictional budget were a bit luxurious - the home maintenance and cleaning budget comes to mind - but for the most part, most of the budget included things that a normal middle-class existence used to afford. Certainly, location makes a huge difference on how far that money goes as well, but I took the main point to be that in order to have that mythical "middle-class lifestyle", it takes an income of nearly that size - which MOST of us are nowhere near.

Incomes have been sitting in the same rut for 30 years and yet the cost to live a normal existence has soared. Yes, there are more "toys" and things that maybe aren't CRUCIAL to daily life, but things like a computer with internet access and a cell phone are considered part of a normal middle-class life now - but of course it means yet more bills that must be paid, in addition to all the usual utilities, vehicle costs, insurance etc. The costs for all these things rises continually, yet our incomes don't keep up. So instead of at least MAINTAINING our standard of living (without ever really getting ahead or living more comfortably), many of us end up just struggling more and more with each passing year.

My husband's income peaked in 2008 (at just under $58,000) and has been on the decline ever since. We are anticipating that his income for 2011 will be close to $20,000 less than it was in 2008. Our budget was plenty tight when his income was good and now we are really struggling and trying to sell our house for something a lot cheaper. We have two kids to support. I am mad as hell at the state of things in this country.

[The Green Manalishi]

62. You are quite and completely wrong

At least the part about children.

For those of us who are childfree by choice it is simply amazing that people of both left and right consider it an inalienable right to breed regardless of whether one has the funds to feed, house, clothe and educate the individuals one brings into the world.

WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET.

I wouldn't say that all parents are selfish, but I consider a child like a vacation house or a Lamborghini- if you can afford one, more power to you, but don't expect me to pay for it, envy you or refrain from making snide remarks if you subsequently find yourself lacking funds to maintain the rest of your lifestyle. Sometimes it seems to me that having kids is a way of saying "my genes are so special that they deserve to be replicated regardless of the stress on the carrying capacity of the earth.

[Orrex]

68. The fact that you equate a child with a vacation home or a Lamborghini speaks volumes

There are lots of things of which we don't need any more on this planet, people among them. But it's preposterous for a child-free person to act as though his ecological conscience is the sole or primary driver behind that decision.

Be childless if that's your choice--it's unlikely that any here would question your right to do so. But unless your carbon footprint is exactly zero and you maintain an entirely waste-free existence, don't pretend that you're adhering to some higher ethical purpose by opting not to have children. That's simply self-righteous and hypocritical.

Equally, don't act like those who do have children are either deliberately or carelessly destroying the planet. There are more fitting windmills to tilt at in this regard. For instance, a single day's toxic output from any standard coal mine has a far worse impact on the environment than my children or I will have in our entire lifetimes. If you're truly so concerned about the environment, then go after the true abusers of the environment.

[blueamy66]

67. But why the NEED to have kids?

I just don't get it.

[Vinca]

69. I don't think we "hate" anyone living the good life, but when they whine

about being down and out while living said good life, it hits a nerve. So many people are really, really struggling . . . it's downright tacky to complain you're broke if you're able to put away money for retirement, hire someone else to do your lawn and clean your house, take a vacation that costs more than a few hundred bucks and get to eat out and buy new clothes once in awhile. I thought of that post yesterday as I watched a man push a shopping cart filled with bits of firewood up the main drag. Today I spotted the same cart by the side of the road filled with empty deposit bottles and cans. If you're doing well, I'm happy for you, but please don't whine about your horrible life.

[LiberalLoner]

71. +1,000 n/t