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

[adsman]

As far as money earnt per year I am a have not.

As far as experiences in life I am a have lots.

The thing is that whenever I need something I always get the money for it. I don't focus on the money, I just focus on what I want or need at that time. It's never failed. I like this as I'm not trapped in a job paying off stuff to be a have lots. You can be earning a million a year, but if you have no choice on working because you have to do it to pay for the position in which you've manouvered yourself, then I consider that not having very much at all.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In Manhattan, 2 people can not live easily on $150k, much less an entire family.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is of course very subjective (and I happen to personally disagree), although I do think that most people have a hard time believing that their neighbors live on far less than they do. according to this wikipedia article, median household income for manhattan in 2000 was $47,030.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if county = isle of manhattan.

'The median sale price for Manhattan condos by the end of 2006 was $1.03 million. The median for a co-op at the end of last year was $650,000.'

Regardlerss, with rent control, and including unemployed people in your numbers, that distorts the market or proper measurement thereof. People who make $44k a year cannot afford $800k 2-br apts.

Using the 'house no more than 3x your income' you'd have to make at least $220k to afford your rent if you moved to Manhattan and bought a place.

Of course, I know there are plenty of places in seriously bad neighborhoods in Manhattan that are cheaper than the median.

[turnipmonster]

just an anecdotal addition, but my first year out of college (2001) I lived on 21st and 3rd with a household income far less than 150k and I felt I lived very well. people have very different standards when it comes to "living well".

[Aloysius]

Diablo / Bet2win - thanks for the book recs (here's the Alain de Botton wiki).

One thing I didn't mention is that the presenters noted that the "status anxiety" is not just tied to consumerism, but also to the prevailing, uncertain global conditions (e.g. geopolitics, environmental, health etc.). This makes sense to me.

In the face of this overwhelming anxiety, interestingly, they noticed a shift in personal accountability - data suggests people are becoming "more responsible for their own actions", a change from the "entitled American" ideology of the 80s and 90s.

The presentation dealt strictly with ways to tie these ideas to marketing content, building content and characters... if you think about the network TV landscape over the past 20 years, I think you get a nice reflection of the cultural mindset, what we enjoy, and possibly why.

-Al

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
You can be earning a million a year, but if you have no choice on working because you have to do it to pay for the position in which you've manouvered yourself, then I consider that not having very much at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% with this, and feel it's why most people tend to regard whatever their current level of expenses are as "basics" rather than "luxuries". very easy to forget that you can move into a smaller place, drive an older car, cut eating expenses, etc. adjusting your spending to your current level of income after a certain point is a great way to stay on the treadmill.

[hobbes9324]

Have lots - but working like a beaver, because I went to Med School late in life, and I have NO faith in the retirement aspect of SS - aside from my philosophical feelings that I shouldn't be able to draw on it, anyway.

We save about 30% of our income yearly.

No kids, but this was decided a long time ago - having said that, I don't know how anyone not making six figures can afford them.

Read "The World is Flat" - for kids in junior high and younger, it's going to be a tough go for a lot of them.

MM MD

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
just an anecdotal addition, but my first year out of college (2001) I lived on 21st and 3rd with a household income far less than 150k and I felt I lived very well. people have very different standards when it comes to "living well".

[/ QUOTE ]

I said 'an entire family could not live easily,' you seem to be changing the rules of the game at halftime, sir.

I lived on 3rd Ave upon graduation and made $34k. That did not cover my rent, taxes, and minimal expenses.

I also see you ignored my comment about rent-control. If I have a 3-br 2ba for $275/mo in the Village, like some I know, then you can afford to raise a family on far less than $150k. But not if you are moving in and buying a place.

Feel free to demonstrate, using market rents or mortgage, btw 1st St and 92nd St, anywhere it would be safe for kids to go outside, the least a family of 4 could live on. Tks.

[turnipmonster]

not really trying to get in a big argument, but this is your quote that I was responding to:

[ QUOTE ]
In Manhattan, 2 people can not live easily on $150k, much less an entire family.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to the first part of the quote, namely 2 people can't live easily on 150k. in my experience, this is not really true.

no real interest in responding re: families, mostly because I think you are probably right. two people is obv a different ballgame than 2 adults + 1 kid, etc.

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
Disagree with premise, only true in expensive cities.

The rich got poorer and made less during 2001-2004, and the average, poor, and middle-class Americans all made more money.

NYTimes, Feb 24, 2006:
"The savings of people at the top 10 percent of the income scale declined by 6 percent, ...their income, on average, fell by about the same proportion. (Meanwhile, the typical American's income rose by 1.6%.)"

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.

All numbers are real, that is, inflation-adjusted.

In Manhattan, 2 people can not live easily on $150k, much less an entire family.

[ QUOTE ]
the only preferred destination is "upper class", or Have Lots.


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Article in the NY Times today.

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
Disagree with premise, only true in expensive cities.

The rich got poorer and made less during 2001-2004, and the average, poor, and middle-class Americans all made more money.

NYTimes, Feb 24, 2006:
"The savings of people at the top 10 percent of the income scale declined by 6 percent, ...their income, on average, fell by about the same proportion. (Meanwhile, the typical American's income rose by 1.6%.)"

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.

All numbers are real, that is, inflation-adjusted.

In Manhattan, 2 people can not live easily on $150k, much less an entire family.

[ QUOTE ]
the only preferred destination is "upper class", or Have Lots.


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked up the Times article you quoted. The full quote on the website (subscription needed) is, "The erosion of savings affected the wealthy and the poor alike. The savings of people at the top 10 percent of the income scale declined by 6 percent, to $365,100; their income, on average, fell by about the same proportion. (Meanwhile, the typical American's income rose marginally.)" The prior paragraph is, "The typical family's savings -- either in retirement accounts or elsewhere -- fell to $23,000, almost $7,000 less than three years earlier. Meanwhile, the median indebtedness of the three out of four families who had some form of debt rose by a third, to $55,300."