Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you consider a million dollars in the bank "squarely middle class", then you have no concept of "squarely middle class".
Obviously a million dollars doesn't really mean you're "rich", as people can have that after 30-40 years of careful investing, even with fairly normal salaries, but it's nowhere close to "squarely middle class". It's putting a household in the top 5% in rich countries, to say nothing of 90% of the world.
I would agree with this. It would be very difficult for a middle class couple to save a million bucks in the bank - well those middle class who don't live in a really cheap apt and don't eat kraft dinner and tuna every day and have practically no life and bare min things because they 'have' to be a millionaire lol. I think my partner and I will have over a million in the bank for retirement but that won't be another 25-30 years. In Toronto 118 of every 1000 is a millionaire but these people are not typically your avg middle class and most make well above avg salaries- or retired with an awesome nest egg - they are the top 10 percent in Toronto and most are above squarely middle class status.
If you consider a million dollars in the bank "squarely middle class", then you have no concept of "squarely middle class".
I get you man, I get you.
Obviously I didn't mean for it to read $1 million in the bank, that isn't exactly common for an American household, I just mean people being able to obtain assets among other things collectively valued more than a million. I mean, to be honest, that isn't uncommon in some of the large American cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Obviously a million dollars doesn't really mean you're "rich", as people can have that after 30-40 years of careful investing, even with fairly normal salaries, but it's nowhere close to "squarely middle class". It's putting a household in the top 5% in rich countries, to say nothing of 90% of the world.
$1 million just doesn't have the same value it did 15-30 years ago. In a lot of instances, what you're able to do with it is significantly less than then, it just doesn't buy you as much anymore. I've also thought that the middle class' income is rising, suddenly it's not really out of the question to have an average-ish family out somewhere like Naperville with a pair of Porche's on the driveway and total assets totaling well above $1 million. I just wouldn't call these people "rich," though, well off certainly, rich may be stretching it. That was my main point.
Also, the United States isn't just any country. There are worthless countries like India in the world where places like Calcutta have literally hundreds of thousands to millions of people whose lives are worth less than $1 (United States dollar) a day. The American cities should be held to different standards, even a failed society (for America's 4 million + places) like Riverside-San Bernardino would constitute as a "luxury" metropolis in third worlds like India, Cambodia, Indonesia, majority of Africa, so on.
I mean human life in the third bloody world is a joke.
Here's a little nugget that will certainly depress all us regular folk that vicariously dream of living the life of luxury... if even the number were half of what is claimed, it seems that 22 of the world's 1800+Billionaires have reserved units in this oceanfront tower well under construction (gone vertical 5th floor!) in Miami. The Porsche Design Tower's main draw is the elevator that will whisk you and your obviously rare and expensive car up 60 floors to your ultra ultra luxurious condo with your own swimming pool on the balcony. Projects that obscenely display such wealth and status as this tower were inevitable given the world as it is today and the technology to realize almost all desires if you have the $$$$, and it puts into stark (and maddening) perspective the divide between the have and have nots. --- It's also a humongous phallic symbol
NY and SF less impressive when you take account of COL.
People always say this, but I don't get it. It's the same money, using the same currency.
I would guess a lot of people in SF would say they get a heck of a lot more COL than in Texas. It's just that they value things. If you want a big suburban McMansion, lots of space, and three cars, then NYC or SF are terrible choices. Move to Tulsa or Corpus Christi or something.
But if you want an urban, cosmopolitan environment, transit, access to nature, etc, then they're quite good choices. I mean, who lives "better"? The typical 3,000 square feet McMansion dweller in Plano, or the owner of a 2 bedroom in Brooklyn or Noe Valley (SF)? It's all priorities and lifestyle.
Obviously I didn't mean for it to read $1 million in the bank, that isn't exactly common for an American household, I just mean people being able to obtain assets among other things collectively valued more than a million. I mean, to be honest, that isn't uncommon in some of the large American cities.
You're right. Millionaires seem like a dime a dozen in certain cities (e.g., New York and SF), but that's the very point of this ranking. Millionaires have concentrated themselves in these types of places, and thus, if you're outside of these wealth bubbles (and quite frankly, that's what they are), millionaires are much less common. Instead of, perhaps, 1 in 20 people in select cities, the average becomes 1 in 200 in the rest of the country -- and likely even lower in many areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
$1 million just doesn't have the same value it did 15-30 years ago. In a lot of instances, what you're able to do with it is significantly less than then, it just doesn't buy you as much anymore. I've also thought that the middle class' income is rising, suddenly it's not really out of the question to have an average-ish family out somewhere like Naperville with a pair of Porche's on the driveway and total assets totaling well above $1 million. I just wouldn't call these people "rich," though, well off certainly, rich may be stretching it. That was my main point.
We have to make a distinction here, though, between valuable assets and income. Indeed, the pool of people with total assets valued at $1 million is much larger, but $1 million in cash assets is another story entirely. Again, though, living in a relatively affluent suburban enclave in a major metro area is far from telling of the economic landscape of the nation overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
Also, the United States isn't just any country. There are worthless countries like India in the world where places like Calcutta have literally hundreds of thousands to millions of people whose lives are worth less than $1 (United States dollar) a day. The American cities should be held to different standards, even a failed society (for America's 4 million + places) like Riverside-San Bernardino would constitute as a "luxury" metropolis in third worlds like India, Cambodia, Indonesia, majority of Africa, so on.
The level of poverty and low-standard of living in other areas of the world are appalling, but there are definitely areas of the US that could give them a run for their money. I think many Americans would be appalled at the areas of deep poverty within this country if they had more exposure to them.
I think that's part of the problem with this conversation. If you're only exposed to certain areas/social circles, it's so easy to be oblivious to the immense class gulf that still exists in this country.
People always say this, but I don't get it. It's the same money, using the same currency.
I would guess a lot of people in SF would say they get a heck of a lot more COL than in Texas. It's just that they value things. If you want a big suburban McMansion, lots of space, and three cars, then NYC or SF are terrible choices. Move to Tulsa or Corpus Christi or something.
But if you want an urban, cosmopolitan environment, transit, access to nature, etc, then they're quite good choices. I mean, who lives "better"? The typical 3,000 square feet McMansion dweller in Plano, or the owner of a 2 bedroom in Brooklyn or Noe Valley (SF)? It's all priorities and lifestyle.
I agree with mostly.
There is one caveat though. If you live in a smaller city, you do end up spending less time commuting (wasting time in a stressful way) everyday in general. If one makes $80k in NYC, chances are that he ends up living some where really far away from his office in midtown Manhattan and spends a few hours in trains/subways together with another 1 million passengers. That's really not part of high COL.
I wholeheartedly disagree. It's clear to me, however, that further engaging in this debate is futile, considering the mere questioning of wealth and its distribution characterizes, to you, "class warfare," which couldn't be more absurd to me.
I'm glad you cracked the code, kid. Nice work. And thanks for the obligatory 1000-word NYT article (I was kind of hoping for something a bit longer from Salon or Mother Jones, but it will do). I envy the clarity you have discovered.
Let's not pretend - you are a bit angry that the Washington DC metro is not on that list, and you are railroading a discussion about who is into a discussion about why that is bad thing. I really don't care about "engaging in a debate" or your personal moral judgement on capitalism - the world is full of some incredibly bright living thinkers and troves of dead ones who can articulate that concern far beyond your abilities (or the abilities of the under-qualified journalists you link me to read). I kind of wished you would have talked a bit more cerebrally to the root causes of why what you call "wealth bubbles" exist in a curious collection of certain places (instead of dusting off your political science skills from college); but now I know how you feel about income distribution. Terrific. Pity the trust-fund kid in college who ignored you and helped cause this mess.
I really didn't get much of a response to my last post beyond "exploitation", "investments" and "class stratification", so I'll kindly let it die on the vine - feel free to get a good last word in. I'm off to polish-up my monocle and carve-up the indigenous energy resources of the helpless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
