Will the home prices ever go down? (Boston: upper-class, for rent)

[yellowstatus]

Originally Posted by Dom Cobb

Last point, as this becoming a tedious discussion as you are clearly myopic and cannot put yourself outside of what you know.

My wife and I are leaving Boston in a few months for mostly of cost of living that many others and myself have outlined in this thread and elsewhere. Good luck to you and everyone else.

I’d ask you to remember this thread as you age into your 60s and 70s and demand that you don’t have anyone serve or help you that is 30 or younger. No 30 year old doctor or police officer or trash collector - since having children is an individual economic choice and does not have a societal benefit. Yes, providing any economic incentive to have a generation of skilled workers behind you to help you is bad policy.

We should be encouraging educated people to have more children, not less or none at all.

My comment was mean-spirited, I'm sorry. Have a happy Christmas everyone. We have our differences, but let's not forget our common elements in these divisive times.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

You're speaking of the rich, not the upper class, IMO. Rich (also hard to define) are a tiny portion of the upper class. Classes in economics and public policy use the quintile breakdowns, or in percentages of poverty level (as in 150% of poverty), but rarely total assets. Sure, there are problems with any methods, but if you say that only people that don't work but live off investments and other assets, well that's flawed as well, first it cuts the upper class to either a tiny amount of people (if you say there has to be a min income based on those passive income streams) or an incredibly large one since people in retirement living off of a dwindling 401k would also be included as upper class. Using other methods, such as total assets, is also flawed, as one can be loaded on paper, like a farmer who ones a few hundred acres and expensive machinery for their trade), but actually earn very little. All definitions have limitations, heck, in the one you threw out there are loads lower class people on wages that make much much more than white collared salary people; obviously that doesn't make sense either.


Never mind those people living in houses owned by family trusts, or have family trust income... hard to capture.


The thing is though, without a firm/clean definition and relatively straightforward way of measuring these things (flawed methods though they may be) there is little to no point in having discussions or gripes about things are too hard on the middle class here (or anywhere).

No. I'm speaking of the American Upper Class. From Wikipedia:

The main distinguishing feature of this class, which is estimated to constitute roughly 1% of the population, is the source of income. While the vast majority of people and households derive their income from wages or salaries, those in the upper class derive their income from investments and capital gains.[5] Estimates for the size of this group commonly vary from 1% to 2%,[4] while some surveys have indicated that as many as 6% of Americans identify as "upper class."

If you've got a better-sourced definition of upper class, I'm happy to reconsider. Wikipedia, even when properly sourced, isn't definitive, but it's more convincing than your vague "classes in economics and public-policy".

And your examples aren't particularly compelling. It's about the sources of income, not the total value of assets. A farmer that earns very little isn't in the upper class; a retired person who is drawing down their capital isn't upper class, either. A retired person who does live only off of their income probably is in the upper class. Someone living off a family trust is almost certainly in the upper class.

And of course we can have discussions about what's hard on the middle class (or the working class); this definition is particularly appropriate for general discussions because it's conceptually concrete. We aren't tasked with actually determining who is and who isn't upper class to discuss these things.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

If you've got a better-sourced definition of upper class, I'm happy to reconsider. Wikipedia, even when properly sourced, isn't definitive, but it's more convincing than your vague "classes in economics and public-policy".

And your examples aren't particularly compelling. It's about the sources of income, not the total value of assets. A farmer that earns very little isn't in the upper class; a retired person who is drawing down their capital isn't upper class, either. A retired person who does live only off of their income probably is in the upper class. Someone living off a family trust is almost certainly in the upper class.

And of course we can have discussions about what's hard on the middle class (or the working class); this definition is particularly appropriate for general discussions because it's conceptually concrete. We aren't tasked with actually determining who is and who isn't upper class to discuss these things.

Nah, I'll take my (very good, top 10 school at the time) school of public policy learned definitions over wikipedia. Thank you. Fine if you'd rather stick to a definition where only the top couple of percent (probably less) is upper class, so the rest of us are middle class are worse. And yes, if you don't agree on what upper class is (your definition is so murky its might useless, as opposed to the one I presented)... but hey, how about Pew Charitable numbers? U.S. as whole, so lower:



In 2016, the median income for the upper class was $187,872; for the middle class, it was $78,442; for the lower class, it was $25,624 (in 2016 dollars; figures reflect a three-person household).


They're ok. They use a percentage system. Congressional Research Service has theirs... anyway you slice it, 250k is above middle.

[Guineas]

$250k is not a lot in Boston regardless what percentile marker you want to give it. It does highlight how ridiculous Boston home prices have become and how we have sort of accepted the high housing costs as a given.

Lots of people are overstretched in the Boston area. Just because Boston escaped largely the 2008 recession, doesn't mean it will escape the next one, especially since prices are now more than double the 2006 peak.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Nah, I'll take my (very good, top 10 school at the time) school of public policy learned definitions over wikipedia. Thank you. Fine if you'd rather stick to a definition where only the top couple of percent (probably less) is upper class, so the rest of us are middle class are worse. And yes, if you don't agree on what upper class is (your definition is so murky its might useless, as opposed to the one I presented)... but hey, how about Pew Charitable numbers? U.S. as whole, so lower:



In 2016, the median income for the upper class was $187,872; for the middle class, it was $78,442; for the lower class, it was $25,624 (in 2016 dollars; figures reflect a three-person household).


They're ok. They use a percentage system. Congressional Research Service has theirs... anyway you slice it, 250k is above middle.

And I’ll take Wikipedia and their sources over someone I can’t tell from Adam. Is your definition in a book somewhere? In a referred journal? If you have a graduate degree I’m sure you’ve written papers. “My teachers said so” may mean something is likely true, but it isn’t going to convince a referee that your argument is justified. Most referees aren’t calling you out on your assumptions because they’re jerks, the system requires healthy skepticism.

The pew source you’re likely referring to is based on self-reported classifications.

Yes, the Rich Are Different | Pew Research Center

And the CRS specifically states they don’t define what the middle class is.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20811.pdf

My definition is not murky. It’s crystal clear and easy to understand. It doesn’t require arbitrary cutoffs or really the need for comparisons in general. It’s just not good for statistical purposes. We’re discussing in general terms about people that may be entirely hypothetical, though, not trying to determine what fraction of Massachusetts is in each social class.

So what if most people are in the middle and lower class? That’s true of feudal Europe from where our ideas of class are most recently descended. It seems the earlier line of reasoning was basically “you’re upper class, you can’t complain” and that argument is weakened if the person making it is really in the middle class. Why not just disagree with the specific complaint instead of saying they have no place to have any grievance?

And yes, I will agree that $250k is a lot of money, even here. Once you get beyond the poverty level, more money doesn’t really make your life easier. It seems like it should, but it doesn’t. At those income levels feeling poor is more of an expectation problem than specifically a money problem.

[redplum33]

I consider the classes subjective. This is how I see it:

Lower: Poor people. Many are unemployed. Includes people living in public housing and/or receiving welfare, food stamps, etc. Many are single mothers.

Lower Middle: Typically blue collar workers. They live modestly and they get by without the need for public assistance. Many will struggle at times.

Middle Middle: Mix of blue and white collar. They generally live comfortably but not extravagantly.

Upper Middle: Usually white collar. They live very comfortably and are able to afford luxuries. Considered to be rich.

Upper: The wealthy. Extravagant lifestyles. Will include A list celebrities, CEO's of large companies, recipients of large trust funds, etc.

This is a pretty simplistic breakdown, and I'm aware it has its flaws, but I do think it's relatively accurate. Although I realize that some people will not agree with my definitions.

I'll also add that, top 10 school or not, I strongly disagree with timberlake's breakdown by percentiles. I don't believe that every area will necessarily have people that fall within all of the classes. Some examples:

In many areas in West Virginia, nearly everyone is Lower or Lower Middle by my definitions. IMO, it would be ridiculous to label the top 20% as Upper Class.

In the Hamptons, nearly everyone is Upper Middle or Upper by my definitions. IMO, it would be ridiculous to label the bottom 20% as Lower Class.

A breakdown by percentiles makes no sense at all.

As for a household income of 250k, I agree that it is a lot of money. It is definitely not Upper Class though. And I don't care if it's top 5%. Based on the definitions I provided above, I feel a household income of 250k in Boston would likely put you in either the higher end of Middle Middle or the lower end of Upper Middle.

[CREW747]

Thoughts?Would this ever actually happen in Massachusetts?


https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...ng-racism.html

https://slate.com/business/2018/12/o...ly-zoning.html

[BostonMike7]

Probably not. Too much NIMBYism.

[rethcir]

If a family can’t find a way to live comfortably on 250k so,where inside 128, their standards are too high, they are horrendous with their money, or both. I’m not talking about living in a top 5 school district, I’m talking about having a decent enough house in a safe neighborhood and a commute around an hour or less with enough left over to save a little bit for retirement and college.

[brainbree]

Rich people never want to be seem as upper class, and so they do everything possible to be seen as part of the middle class. They do this so can enjoy upper class luxuries and maintain their victimhood