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 have a net worth of $50,000, does that make you "middle class"?
NO. Originally, middle class was the class of people free of the worries of the lower classes (food, shelter, debilitating & unhealthy jobs, rapidly declining health, having little/no of $afety cushion, limited (no) access to medical care etc.). True middle class people have informal "networking" power to affect the course of their "communities" (as the very least), a country club membership is a must. A 50K "middle class" person of today is more anxious and uncertain about the future than people down on the social ladder and he/she has no decision power whatsoever, just like a 10k/year person.
Calling somebody making a median income "middle class" is oxymoron, median class is a much more proper name.
Middle class is that falls under this criteria:
1- Hardly fulfilling their basic needs
2- Bearing burden of all government indirect taxes
3- Securing the income and business circle of high class and govt by more consumption
By theories middle class is the back bone of country economics and almost 90% people in services sector especially job holders are belong to middle class and income has no concern with it.
Middle class is that falls under this criteria:
1- Hardly fulfilling their basic needs
2- Bearing burden of all government indirect taxes
3- Securing the income and business circle of high class and govt by more consumption
By theories middle class is the back bone of country economics and almost 90% people in services sector especially job holders are belong to middle class and income has no concern with it.
This isn't middle class. It's former middle class people to snooty to call themselves working class now.
I think "working class" is an obsolete expression because it implies that wealthy people don't work.
I think there is a difference here. We mean work as in subsist. Wealthy and really really wealthy people can go without work for a good long while without ending up in destitution.
You need to go back and read up. Turn off the Rush Limbaugh and head to the library.
This is why I say Americans should just look at the hierarchy of the workplace to determines class in America. Relations in the workplace translate into social relations out of the workplace.
In the USA, the poor get welfare handouts and live very well but they don't earn their money, the rich can live off their investments or inheritance. The rest of us have to work and have income.
The poor do not live well. What the heck is wrong with some of you? Is the "cell phones in the ghetto", "purchasing lobster with an ETB Card" canard?
Even the swindlers do not live well. Owning a few luxury items doesn't translate into economic security.
What's funny is that the vast majority of people on government assistance do work. It's that their wages aren't keeping pace with the COL.
NO. Originally, middle class was the class of people free of the worries of the lower classes (food, shelter, debilitating & unhealthy jobs, rapidly declining health, having little/no of $afety cushion, limited (no) access to medical care etc.). True middle class people have informal "networking" power to affect the course of their "communities" (as the very least), a country club membership is a must. A 50K "middle class" person of today is more anxious and uncertain about the future than people down on the social ladder and he/she has no decision power whatsoever, just like a 10k/year person.
Calling somebody making a median income "middle class" is oxymoron, median class is a much more proper name.
You are referring to the upper middle class and the independently wealthy.
Middle class are people in the middle -- those who must work and are not living off government handouts.
The poor do not live well. What the heck is wrong with some of you? Is the "cell phones in the ghetto", "purchasing lobster with an ETB Card" canard?
Even the swindlers do not live well. Owning a few luxury items doesn't translate into economic security.
What's funny is that the vast majority of people on government assistance do work. It's that their wages aren't keeping pace with the COL.
The poor in the USA living off government handouts don't need to worry about economic security. The government provides them their housing, their food, their clothing, it pays for their utilities, free cell phones, completely free medical care -- no co-pays. The average cost now of a welfare household is $61,000 a year which is actually considerably more than what many middle class live on.
The poor in the USA living off government handouts don't need to worry about economic security. The government provides them their housing, their food, their clothing, it pays for their utilities, free cell phones, completely free medical care -- no co-pays. The average cost now of a welfare household is $61,000 a year which is actually considerably more than what many middle class live on.
Where on Earth did you get these figures? That sounds absurd. Welfare reform in the 90s completely gutted any chance of total economic security from handouts.
Where on Earth did you get these figures? That sounds absurd. Welfare reform in the 90s completely gutted any chance of total economic security from handouts.
Wrong -- while you might not live exactly like a king on $61,000, you can live quite well --- far better than many working middle class who make $30,000 to $40,000 and even must pay taxes and health insurance premiums.
"If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
Wrong -- while you might not live exactly like a king on $61,000, you can live quite well --- far better than many working middle class who make $30,000 to $40,000 and even must pay taxes and health insurance premiums.
"If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
The articles premise seems more like a sleight of hand technique to stir up more anti-welfare sentiment among the right wing (*cough*, baby boomers). I mean to evenly divide the total spending on welfare with the total number of people living below the poverty line is so deceptive. First off, not all those families apply or receive assistance, middle income earners also receive some aid, and not all those families who do receive assistance receive 60k worth of it. I am not even sure this is the case for a small portion of the families on assistance.
This is just another article in a line of many that attack social services as the main burden. Poor people are the scapegoats here, not rich people avoiding taxes ("but they provide jobs, dur hur", "why punish success, ahyuck"), not defense overspending, not two trillion dollar wars, corporate welfare and bailouts.
It's those darn poor people who buy cigarettes and booze with their food stamps, gosh darn it!
If that BS article you posted was true these households wouldn't be below the poverty line anymore.
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.
I think there is a difference here. We mean work as in subsist. Wealthy and really really wealthy people can go without work for a good long while without ending up in destitution. 
