<p>DATA: Full-Frieight and “Middle-Class” Customers a thread posted in the parents forum…got me thinking about who are the middle class, who are the poor?</p>
<p>At a public hearing over a decade ago I heard a woman describing her daily visits to food pantrys so she could feed her children. Without the help of the food pantry, she claimed her children would go hungry.</p>
<p>The woman also acknowledged that she was not eligible for food stamps or other feeding programs because she earned over fifty thousand dollars a year and owned her own home valued then at over two hundred thousand. She testified that she needed all that she had because without it her family would be devistated…her daughter and teen age son were at really nice schools and they would be ashamed if they had to sell their house and move into a condominium or god forbid an apartment. </p>
<p>On a televised news magazine, I heard a person discribe their million dollar a year income as being “Comfortably middle class” and worried about what kinds of sacrifices they would have to make to afford college for their two kids.</p>
<p>Now Mini’s posting about who is getting squeezed out of schools, and I wonder…where is the middle class. Is it the nurse and police officer whose family income is described as over $150K in a New York suburb, is it the nurse making $40k somewhere in the mid west, or doctor bringing in over $200 K.</p>
<p>Do we need a new catagory to describe the families between $35 and $90 thousand per year?</p>
<p>Please try to avoid bashing the rich or blaming the poor…this is just to discuss what do you think middle class is and what are the physical evidences your categories indicate as middle class or as poor.</p>
<p>Many folks I know pretty consistently overestimate the median family income of folks in the big cities in the east, where it is usually in the $50-$60k range. It is higher in San Francisco, but if you take in the surrounding communities of Richmond, South San Francisco, and Oakland (median family income is around $44k), not by an awful lot, and there are not that many four-person families in San Francisco proper to begin with. Median income for a family of four in California is $62.5k.</p>
<p>Don’t overestimate those nurse wages in New York City, either. The median wage for an RN in New York is $59.7k - meaning half are making less than that.</p>
<p>The income range $40k - $100k covers Americans from the 35% percentile to the 80th percentile. Statistically, that’s tilted a bit toward the high end, but may be a reasonable description for the “middle” among those old enough to have college-bound students. .</p>
<p>I was just talking about this with my (divorced) DP’s tonite as we had a nice wrap up dinner before tomorrows trip to college… they are both in the design area making about 65ish each…and in the DC area this is maybe midlde class…certainly not uppermiddleclass… both families are thrifty and not overwhelmed in debt…but we decided “class” designations are really regional. 120k would be off the hook in one region and maybe almost struggling in other areas (SAn Fran?) …we never figured out if the Dept of Ed. figures cost of living into the mix …but some colleges must. 120k split between 2 families in a high cost of living area doesnt seem too flush…but we.re ok…and they choose to live here so…maybe by the time im a senior my mom will be living in Guadalajara.</p>
<p>poor families have to work several jobs to put food on the table- qualify for low income housing- use food banks and food stamps regularly.
Middle income families are able to get basic needs met. By basic I mean a 1000sq ft house- maybe two 5yr old cars, they are able to take their two kids camping once in a while although they stress every time the car or house ins comes due.
Upper middle families are able to enjoy a larger home, perhaps newer cars and use air travel for their vacations rather than drive.
They maybe are even able to consider having more than two kids not to mention replacing that couch they had when they were married!
really wealthy families- don’t need to work, they could just manage their investments.</p>
<p>EK so would you classify a realtor making a million dollars a year as upper middle because they would have to work full time to bring in a salary to continue his lifestyle? or rich because they could live off of some investments with some downsizing of spending?</p>
<p>Does any of this give us direction on who should get what level and type of student loan,grant or other form of aid? Does the system need changing?</p>
<p>How about other programs? Should a family have to be so poor that they can’t afford cable television before they can get public help? Or does it make sense to provide food, health care and education to families that own two cars, get cable television, go on vacation (not just get a week or two off from work…but actually can afford to go somewhere beyond the local state or county fair)</p>
<p>Should public colleges be free as they once were and as high school still is? Offering every student a chance at a college education regardless of family interest or ability?</p>
<p>Does anyone believe that a family can be earning $60,000 a year and still be poor? or that a family earning over $500,000 simply middle class…or should the definition be in terms of average home prices…</p>
<p>Middle class would be a family that whose income is 1/4 the price of a median home in their area, wealthy have incomes equal to or above the median price home?</p>
Public schools aren’t free…we simply pay for them involuntarily. And in the good old days, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that state colleges offered every student a chance at college…they had to gain admission first, which was no sure thing, not unlike the “free” French system.</p>
<p>I would say they would be rich with a million dollars.
We have friends who could be considered “rich” however they have a fairly low key lifestyle- owning unassuming homes ( yes plural)- they can meet basic needs housing/food/medical- easily without working.
What your lifestyle costs you to maintain doesn’t make you rich or middle class- but if you attempt to have more expensive baubles than you can afford you may find yourself working to pay the interest rather than the interest paying you.</p>
<p>It seems fairly conservative to say that middle income is 1/4 the price of a median home.
Our home is assessed at $340K on the small side at 1000sq ft ( well actually less than that) and over 100 years old.It is probably an average price for the area- that includes homes that are in much cheaper areas than the city.
However our income is about 1/7th of that before taxes. We are middle class- and still have a higher income than the nations average.
Housing costs have risen so high that many are paying 40% of income or more just to find a place to live.
Taxes would have to be raised to support free public colleges ( we have a hard enough time paying for K-12 which isn’t fully funded) I don’t think the voting public would go for that.</p>
<p>Ek if you didn’t have equity build up do you think you could afford to buy your own home in todays market…that is could a young family in your area afford that price based on median incomes?</p>
<p>Do you think that evaluating wealth status based on the type of living arraingments you can afford is better than using income?</p>
<p>Ek if you didn’t have equity build up do you think you could afford to buy your own home in todays market…that is could a young family in your area afford that price based on median incomes?</p>
<p>In todays market we wouldn’t be living 30 min from my H job- we would be living way far out as some of his peers do and spend hours commuting. If we wanted to live in the city- it is likely that we would be living in an area that is currently viewed as “troubled”. When we bought this house it was in a blue collar neighborhood- on the edge of an industrial area. Our neighbors were housefuls of students, shipyard workers and grocery store clerks. It is still on the edge of an industrial area, but more of the people moving in are professionals who got out of CA when housing costs started to climb even quicker than it has in the past.
I think that as far as income goes- a family may make $200K in Ca but they may be living in a small home that takes practically every penny. True if they moved to Albany Mo, AND they were able to maintain their income they would be pretty well off. But the income required to maintain a minimal lifestyle in Silicon Valley makes them middle or even low middle income.
The reverse is also true. My brother who retired from teh service and is working as an electrical engineer, & with his wife who is a teacher probably make $170K But they live in a gated community- with a 5 bedroom home( one kid) and take lots of vacations because their area is relatively cheap, so I would say their income would make them upper middle for their area. ( however the fact that my brother “adopted” his teenaged nephew so he could come to this country- had his child support lowered because of it & had the boys expenses paid for by his uncle- makes him low class in my book)
But I really ascribe to more of the descriptions that Paul Fusell uses.
I think background and what your priorities are define your class more than income.
Artists don’t make much money, but I wouldn’t necessarily say they are lower class. Teachers and social workers dont’ make a lot either, but they would be middle class, whereas in my world even if you made $100K if you made it deceitfully- whether you are a drug company exec who knows your product makes people sick or a car salesman who pressures people to buy more than they need or can afford, you would be lower class.</p>
<p>This doesn’t really come into play to college admissions however, at least in our experience. The costof living for a state- I believe is averaged, so you are allowed the same for expenses if you live in an expensive urban area, or if you live in a town of 100 without the taxes of the city.
I think there are more similarities between cities and I wish that someday they will acknowledge that some find it very difficult to pack up and move and be able to find work- even if the cost of living is cheaper</p>
<p>I think there is poor and there is the growing number of working poor: these are the people whom Tenisgh refers to as the working class and those at the lower end of the middle class spectrum. This group that may look good on paper, and are literally using every cent to get by. They are not eligible for food stamps, free lunch, medicaid, child health plus, subsidized child care, free afterschool or summercamp, section 8 or other subsidized housing. </p>
<p>I live in NYC where a not so very nice cheap 1 bedroom apartment is now more than 1000 per month (my best friend as 2 kids, a 2 bedroom apartment and is paying $1750 per month in rent). Trying to live in manhattan is out of the question. She makes about 50,000 a year with no luxuries (car, cable, cell phones, etc) to speak of , job moved to Jersey so she is commuting from Queens and is literally purchasing money orders each payday to ensure her rent is paid. In the eyes of FA she would be considered middle clas as when she files her FAFSA the only thing they see is her salary as you don’t get too many “points” in the FA process for being a renter.</p>
<p>well I consider ourselves working class even though we only make 1/7th of what our house would cost- but ironically if we hadn’t bought a house yet- we could have been eligible for subsidized loan for 1st home purchase even if we made $30,000 more!
But you are right- we don’t qualify for any help- to qualify our daughter would need to qualify for free/reduced lunch and for a family of four that is less than $36,000 before taxes.
I get calls asking me to donate for school supplies for the new school year and I want to say "honey, I don’t know how we are gonna get my daughter what she needs for school, let alone contribute to anyone else.
I do sponsor a child in Bolivia, and we do donate to charity, it makes me feel good to help someone else, it takes the thought off of how we are going to get the car fixed!</p>
<p>CNBC did a financial analysis last Sunday (I think it was that network, but I could be wrong). They said that to be upper middle class in the NE, to have a nice 4 bedroom, two nice cars, put 2 kids through college, and take at least one nice vacation a year (“nice” was not defined), would take net take-home pay of around $350,000. So if that’s after tax, you can figure on the pre-tax.</p>
<p>Hayden:
That is nonsense. We’re able to afford most of the items listed without making that kind of money pre- or post-tax. For the rest, it’s a question of taste or space (eg. we have space for one car in our driveway. Since we either walk or take the T, we don’t use the car much anyway.)
NYC might be a different story. But not where I lived, amidst $1M+ homes.</p>
I knew I was poor! LOL This is a real sticking point with me and a couple of my buddies who are working meanial jobs (for only now hopefully, hire me damnit Fifth Third Bank!) and barely making ends meet. I know of numerous people who are making around what I make (around $20k a year give or take a few grand) and can barely scrape by, or are in debt up to their eyeballs (read: me) and do not have kids. But have a kid out of wedlock totally fail in life and not work, and you get your rent paid for, food stamps for a couple years, earned income tax credit (this is welfare, just by a different name) AND child support! Then sometimes they will have a live in boyfriend who is an “entrepenuer” (sells weed) with all his money coming under the table. Why does the system reward such failure? There is a house full of Puerto Rican chicks who live next door to me, and they are always home partying all the time, and I know for a fact they don’t pay any rent because of section 8. Meanwhile me and my roommate just now got Satellite after 7 months of living here, because we can finally afford it. People not disabled on public assistance, should not be allowed to have cell phones or cable.</p>
<p>I have known families where both parents were teachers and have seen them at both ends of a fairly wide range of life styles…For example in rural upstate New York, they could own a house on a lake, and take ski trips and vacations; in more urban situations they are fending for themselves trying to make the rent, the home and auto insurance, with very little savings…</p>
<p>I admit it bothers me when I see $1,500 worth of television in a household I know qualifies for free lunch.</p>
<p>To me a big factor is: do both parents have to work full time? Most respectible jobs (teacher, policeman, etc.) X 2 will put the family into 6 figures with a little seniority (i.e. by the time your kids are going off to college.) But having both parents working full time puts a strain on the family - even if it’s not financial - plus requiring additional expenses (such as child care.) So I’d say a 1 income family above $100,000 is “upper middle” while a 2 income family might not be. (Note: I’m from California. YMMV.)</p>
<p>I have a friend whose parents work at the United Nations. Together, they probably make about 150,000, but then the UN pays 75% of her tuition (highschool and college). They also can go on ‘home leave’ once a year, and usually travel outside of the country on spring and winter breaks. They live on Madison Avenue and have a cleaning lady… So obviously even though their income would qualify them as Upper Middle Class (or even just middle class in NYC) I would most definitely call them upper class.</p>