The Haves, Have Nots, & Have Lots - Reformulation of the Middle Class

[JaBlue]

1) Are you a Have Not, Have, Have Lots?
Have, feel like a have lots.

2) How important is this to you going-forward?
I only want as much money as I need to live comfortably and have a family. Ideally I would like to become a have-lots so I can spend time with my kids instead of working to earn money.

3) Will this impact your decision to have a family, number of children?
I will not have more children than I can afford, but I see no reason to expect to not be able to afford as many children as I want.

4) Is your sense of what I wrote above true? Is this true only in expensive metropolitan areas?

Dunno.
---

"I don't know anyone who doesn't aspire to be rich someday, if only to give it all away."

You don't know any teachers?
---
Los Feliz Slim, sounds like you should get out of LA.
---
"'house no more than 3x your income'"

What's this? Can you please explain why or reference somewhere that does?
---

[KKbluff]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Are you a Have Not, Have, Have Lots?

Im a small "have" in my city. In the city I commute to people treat me like I'm a "have a lot" (because I would be in their town). Its only 40 miles away.


2) How important is this to you going-forward?

I do someday want to become a have a lots, but more so financially, (outside of a good house/location). I want to be able to give my future children options and a good environment to grow up in. Outside of that I could care less if I drive a nice car or whatever. Just enough to make my life happy, which is material goods are less of a goal for me.
As in every situation, I view it as a stepping stone to something greater, but that something greater could be anything.


3) Will this impact your decision to have a family, number of children?

Yes, and the timing of when I start to own and earn more money will determine this.


4) Is your sense of what I wrote above true? Is this true only in expensive metropolitan areas?


It depends really. I know people in the town I work at who make $9-11 an hour with their spouse making the same and they have support 2-4 children and still seem to live "close" to a have. If anyone in this town hit the 100k mark they will probably be viewed as a god or a money stealing prick.
Ironic to me is how last weekend after work my gf and I went for a weekend in downtown Chicago to see Wicked the musical. All I heard from ppl who found I went was "damn, how can he afford to VISIT!" And all I felt when I was in Chicago was "damn, how can anyone afford to LIVE here"
My current job location is about 1 hr south from Chicago while my residence is about 2 hours south of chi-town.

(sorry for the tangent)...


[/ QUOTE ]

[PokerJans]

This is very true

My mother clearly falls into the 'have lots' category but because she lives in a very rich part of the county she feels like she is average. And as a result she keeps on wanting to strive to become more powerful and make more money.

She recently had left a job(to take a new one) where all she did was fly around the country and meet up with her friends who she has worked with for 15+ years...when she was at home she would sit down in her office in her work out clothes. EASIEST job ever and she left because she wanted more power and money. She basically worked 25 hours a week for mucho dinero and decided she wanted more or something...

It is sooo funny/sad because she is from shittyville-MA coming from parents who immigrated from Italy and worked in a factory. She now lives in a million dollar house - drives an e class - sends me to a 40K a year college and is a regional director for a company yet she thinks she is average just because she has lived in the OC for awhile and been exposed to people who are 'Have lots more'.

I call her retarded and arrogant everytime we have this conversation.

[RocketManJames]

1) Are you a Have Not, Have, Have Lots?

Based on your definition, Have Lots. In reality, I'm far from Have Lots, and pretty much a typical Have... drive a normal car (< $30K), rent a 1BR apartment, can't spend like there's no tomorrow. 6 figure salaries in the Bay Area really are nothing special these days.

2) How important is this to you going-forward?

Very Important, up until my liquid net worth reaches my magic number, at which point I'll semi-retire and do things I want to do. I'd still work, but I'd definitely take it easier.

3) Will this impact your decision to have a family, number of children?

Yes, I want to provide all I can for my future children (pay 100% of their education, afford to pay for lessons for whatever their interests might be, living in a better neighborhood with better schools or pay for private schooling, etc). Until I can be fairly confident that I can do that easily, it would be irresponsible for me to have kids.

4) Is your sense of what I wrote above true? Is this true only in expensive metropolitan areas?

Not really sure what I think of this, but here's something to consider. I think that while income disparity can cause problems, it's pretty much unavoidable due to the math involved.

Richer people are much more likely to compound their wealth at higher rates than poorer people. Those who are smarter are more likely than their less intelligent counterparts to do the same, but having money makes it easier than having intelligence (personal opinion, here).

So, (rich and smart) are likely to do better than (rich and not-smart) are likely to do better than (poor and smart) are likely to do better than (poor and not-smart). And, we know how compounding rates work... those with lesser annualized returns will never catch up, ever. Over extended periods of time the gap almost by definition has to widen, unless there's some external force (e.g. much heavier taxation on the rich, salary curbs on top-paid types, etc).

Another way to think about it (ignore the impossible physics)... take a super-long ramp and roll a ball down it. Wait a little bit and roll another ball down the same ramp behind it. The distance between the balls will continue to increase, because of the simple head-start.

I'm rambling, but hopefully, you see what I'm saying.

-RMJ

[Subfallen]

Reading this thread is surreal...it's like half of you have forgotten death is coming in not so many years. Are your fundamental desires really so expensive to sate? Is life even about sating desires? I'm an atheist and still reject that premise.

In any case, one must tip his hat to the advertising industry. They've done their job well.

[jcx]

Everyone in this thread is a have. If you have a roof over your head that isn't made of straw, indoor plumbling to take your feces away, and (most importantly) the free time to sit around and think about whether you are a have or have not, you are definitely a have.

[z28dreams]

I was talking about this with the roommates the other day after feeling frustrated w/ my career, and tried to put things in a more comfortable perspective.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but roughly 70% of the world's countries are considered '3rd world' (or 'developing countries' if you want to be more PC)

Referencing wikipedia, I discovered that, if as an individual, you make $60,000 or more, you are within the top 15% of people for incomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluen..._United_States

So, from those numbers alone, if you live in the US and make 60k+, you are within the top 5% of people in the world for wealth.

Of course, the upper 5-10% of the US hold tremendous amounts of wealth. Compared to other nations though, we aren't necessarily that unbalanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

For most people, it's not about how much you make. It's how you perceive yourself when you compare what you make to what your circle of friends make.

[NajdorfDefense]

DaveR, I specifically was talking about income, rather than savings, I included the part of the sentence that mentioned savings for clarity, rather than chop it up further.

'Top 10% average income fell by 6.297% according to the FRB survey of Consumer finances...The poorest 20% made 1.8% more over that time frame.'

This is the point I was getting at, one that the national media will virtually never mention. The income gap closed by 8.1% during this time frame, but that is not discussed, only when it widens back out does the media jump all over it.

I don't think anyone would argue that when it comes to $savings, rich > middle class > poor, by definition. That would seem to be an obvious truism. Also, reporters who do not net out the effect of tens of millions of immigrants coming here, when measuring savings, which distorts the results.

Median indebtedness will almost *always* rise over time, if only due to inflation [plus the securitization of risk taking hold in many more categories than just houses and cars.] So will Income.

Real, after-tax, per-capita disposable income is up approximately 93% or more since 1972. I'll have to dig up the spreadsheet I constructed a few weeks ago showing that, but the number is above 90%, close to double.
Over the past two years, real disposable income is up 4% or so. [This, of course, includes the tens of millions of immigrants who have arrived on the scene recently, and have not had the full benefit of all of those decades to climb the economic ladder. ]

Ah - here's the file:
1972 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $14,512
1987 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $20,072
1995 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $22,153
2006 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $27,789

91.5%, 38.5%, 25.4% gains in real, after-tax income based on the period from year X above to 2006. That's very, very, very good - all gains after the effects of inflation. This is the rate of increase of real income you can either spend or invest.

A lot of people have gone broke betting against the US consumer over the years. A lot of ink has been wasted decrying how we're supposedly getting 'poorer,' quite wrongly. Those Op-Ed writers never go back and confess how wrong they've been over the past 35 years, do they?

{all data from FRB, BEA, and other US Agencies}

[Howard Treesong]

Have Lots, critical, didn't have kids until Have Lots was pretty much guaranteed -- which is, I think, my one true regret, i.e. we're out of time to have more kids. We have two, and I'd really like ten.

I think the statistical disconnect that's coming up in this thread arises from the fact that the OP is discussing wealth and others are discussing income. There is a large correlation between age and wealth; as the average age in the USA grows, the population gets wealthier even if income averages don't change much.

This is a fuzzy recollection and I'm both tired and coming down with a cold, so someone please correct me if I'm all wet here.

[TheMetetron]

1) Are you a Have Not, Have, Have Lots?

Have Lots. Three years ago I was a Have Not. Grew up definitely in the middle of all middle classes but that was only because my dad slaved for 80 hours a week and my mom worked for 30 and took care of us the rest of the time. If it weren't for them, I'd have realized how poor we truly were. Luckily both sets of grandparents were reasonably well off and also didn't let us realize how little money we had.

2) How important is this to you going-forward?

More than I probably want to admit. I definitely could live comfortably in the have category, but drop me below that and I would have a hard time. I mean I did it, but now that I've tasted making multiple hundreds of thousands a year, I don't want to go back. And that's the reason I'm trying to stash away as much of it as I can. Totally debt free for a few years now.

It's not like I spend all the money either. I maybe spend $30,000 a year if I take a high estimate, but I like the security that socking away a ton of money provides. I'll be able to retire early (hopefully) and I get to travel and see the world. I would really hate to go back and I don't admit it to myself often but I think about it a lot.

3) Will this impact your decision to have a family, number of children?

To an extent, but time is a more important reason for me to delay a family until my early 30's. I'd really like to keep living the life I have now for a while longer. I won't get the chance to experience this stuff when I'm older so I want to live in at least 5 more countries before throwing in the towel and settling down. If my wife would let me, I'd definitely try to keep this traveling lifestyle up. Not sure if I can find one that would let me get away with it when I have kids though [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

4) Is your sense of what I wrote above true? Is this true only in expensive metropolitan areas?

Not sure if it is true, but it is true for me. I know friends who would be perfectly happen in the $80-150k range, but that's mostly because they are in the have nots. My brother is also a have not, but is happier than a lot of richer people I know and has no desire to be a have lots. Just depends on the person.