By that reasoning anyone who makes minimum wage in the United States should be classified as “upper class” since the average salary worldwide is less than $18,000 a year.
It’s not just a matter of dollar amounts, it’s about purchasing power.
6 Likes
We’re not talking worldwide, so that’s something of an absurdity. We’re talking about what it means to be middle class in the US.Clearly, if you are middle class in the US, you cannot afford to live in San Fran. Just as it is getting near impossible to live in New York if you are middle class.
You are correct in that it’s about purchasing power to some extent, but when you have major outliers such as these, we’re basically arguing that you cannot afford to just be somewhat well-to-do in places such as these. You now need to be outright rich.
2 Likes
I’m in – just have to convince the missus…
2 Likes
What’s interesting is that the median income and many other income demographics of the Los Angels city that I live in now are relatively close to the little podunk village where I grew up in northern WI…
Cheese: 2000: The median income for a household in the village was $41,406, and the median income for a family was $51,406. Males had a median income of $40,893 versus $21,154 for females. The per capita income for the village was $18,218. About 6.3% of families and 8.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 6.5% of those under age 18 and 14.3% of those age 65 or over.
Estimated median household income in 2013: $56,156 (it was $41,406 in 2000)
Estimated median house or condo value in 2013: $165,731 (it was $84,500 in 2000)
Village: $165,731
WI: $163,000
Mean prices in 2013: All housing units: $179,383; Detached houses: $181,209
Median gross rent in 2013: $647.
For population 25 years and over:
High school or higher: 92.8%
Bachelor’s degree or higher: 15.7%
Graduate or professional degree: 2.4%
Unemployed: 2.0%
Mean travel time to work (commute): 25.4 minutes
LA LA Land: 2000: The median income for a household in the city was $46,000 and the median income for a family was $50,017. Males had a median income of $35,991 versus $28,768 for females. The per capita income for the city was $18,197. About 9.3% of families and 11.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 14.4% of those under age 18 and 7.6% of those age 65 or over.
Estimated median household income in 2013: $64,386 (it was $45,667 in 2000)
Estimated median house or condo value in 2013: $408,800 (it was $207,400 in 2000)
LA LA Land: $408,800
CA: $373,100
Mean prices in 2013: All housing units: $551,439; Detached houses: $586,622; Townhouses or other attached units: $430,826; In 2-unit structures: $538,009; In 3-to-4-unit structures: $423,149; In 5-or-more-unit structures: $428,884; Mobile homes: $89,129; Occupied boats, RVs, vans, etc.: $15,622
Median gross rent in 2013: $1,199.
For population 25 years and over:
High school or higher: 75.5%
Bachelor’s degree or higher: 20.0%
Graduate or professional degree: 5.8%
Unemployed: 6.5%
Mean travel time to work (commute): 28.5 minutes
My LA city enjoys a median income 15% higher than the WI village, but has housing that is ~3x higher. If you were to adjust the WI housing prices for the land that goes with them, then the difference would be much larger (most of those $180k WI houses come with 10-80 acres).
5 Likes
Why are you defining “middle class” as being “the average US income?”
That’s not what “middle class” has ever meant.
[quote]One of the narrowest definitions limits it to those who are literally in the middle fifth of the nation’s income ladder. A wider characterization includes everyone but the poorest 20% and the wealthiest 20%. Displayed below is the Pew Research Center’s definition, which is two-thirds to two times the national median income for your household size.
[/quote]
$34,000 to $102,000 if you are using the Pew measure and your $51K average (which I’m fudging because “median” and “average” are not the same).
5 Likes
Uhm, yes you can. You’re confused about the traditional meaning around “middle class” and conflating with with “average income.” It isn’t and never has been.
It isn’t the payments. Mortgage payments for a house are often pretty much the same as the cost of renting a house. It is the 20% down that they have to save up in order to get that house that they can’t afford.
7 Likes
The median salary for a high school teacher in the US is around $57,000. The median salary for a social worker is around $45,000. So, an average household headed by a working couple where one is a teacher and one a social worker is just over $102,000. To me this is about as stereotypically middle class as you can get, by either the modern financial definition or the more traditional sociological class definition, and is relatively low (eg, replace the social worker by a nurse, or the teacher by a lawyer). Perhaps someone who thinks that $100,000 represents “wealthy” instead of “middle class” can suggest alternate employment for our couple. (Probably “barista”+“street artist” is not a good place to start…)
2 Likes
It really makes me wonder who can afford to live in these places these days. Certainly not the people that work there.
5 Likes
You’ve already confessed to envying my tubs full of scrap parts, so you’re clearly deranged.
I like that in a person 
1 Like
If by “work there” you mean working class service workers and lower paying jobs (like teachers), you’re right. They generally live an hour or so outside of town in one of the once-smaller outlying cities or suburbs. This is a huge problem in the Bay Area.
4 Likes
We have a big problem with this in Chicago, because there’s a 100-year-old statute requiring all city workers (such as police, firefighters, teachers, judges, garbage collectors, animal control workers, etc.) to live within city limits, but for teachers, for example, the average city rent or mortgage payment for a 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom house or apartment equals about 90% of their take home salary. How do you raise a family like that?
7 Likes
The term “middle class” makes more sense if defined as “buying in” to the owning class via long term asset purchasrs: a residential mortgage, retirement assets, etc.
And I don’t agree that middle class housing projects are the Bay Area’s future.
Developer (and investor) promotion of “middle class” housing is the past and the future, at least since the Eisenhower administration, of nearly all U.S. regions. It’s idle rich kid welfare.
The actual future should be to democratically tax excess rents and restrict government supported purchases of residential finance loans with the consensus goal of housing everyone who wants housing.
Underwater mortgages should be appropriated from recalcitrant creditors by eminent domain and then returned to long-term single residency occupants.
Renters? Rent control. Inflation? Price controls. Corporate malfeasance? Dissolution and receivership. Corporate bankruptcy? See corporate malfeasance.
And the DOJ should retool and prioritize criminal investigation of finance, investment and consumer fraud with enhanced penalties under the mandatory sentencing guidelines.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
