What's with all the "Dropping out of Med"

[giantswing]

You are being silly now... I am not saying poor people choose to be poor... What I am saying there are choices that MANY of them make that will most likely make them poor... And these are choices.

Poverty is so much more complex than a bunch of people who make a few bad choices.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DermViser]

You just want disagree for the sake of it... You don't have any #s to prove your points... You even brought up #s that agree with my assertion... What are your numbers?

No I disagree with it bc you're wrong. 70 K to 100 K is not "lower/mid" middle class. It doesn't even include the median income in this country. I'm interested in what you think is "upper/mid" middle class.

 

[W19]

In NYC maybe, lol.

SDN is the strangest place. It's like no one here has ever even met an honest-to-God middle class American. The average married couple family has an income of just over 63k, and the average doctorate holder makes an average of 81.4k. So basically you're saying the average person possessing a doctorate is lower middle class and the average married household doesn't even qualify as middle class

@DermViser brought up numbers that support my points... The average doctorate is only one person--not a two income family.

 

[DermViser]

SDN is the strangest place. It's like no one here has ever even met an honest-to-God middle class American. The average married couple family has an income of just over 63k, and the average doctorate holder makes an average of 81.4k. So basically you're saying the average person possessing a doctorate is lower middle class and the average married household doesn't even qualify as middle class

That's what is so funny! It displays a completely out of touch person.

 

[W19]

No I disagree with it bc you're wrong. 70 K to 100 K is not "lower/mid" middle class. It doesn't even include the median income in this country. I'm interested in what you think is "upper/mid" middle class.

My guess is 100k-140k...

 

[DermViser]

@DermViser brought up numbers that support my points... The average doctorate is only one person--not a two income family.

I didn't bring up any numbers. I linked that article (since you won't Google it) to show the median income in this country. Your number of 70K-100K which you listed as mid to lower middle class is way above that median number.

 

[circulus vitios]

It is not the norm to have a child at 18... If you think it is the norm, I don't know what world you are living in!

It depends on where you live...

 

[Mad Jack]

@DermViser brought up numbers that support my points... The average doctorate is only one person--not a two income family.

Only 25% of households make more than 80k per year. The cutoff for being in the top 10% of households is 118.2k. How the hell are those numbers justifiably lower middle class and mid-middle class, respectively?

 

[Mad Jack]

It is not the norm to have a child at 18... If you think it is the norm, I don't know what world you are living in!

There's nothing wrong with having a kid at 18. Hell, my mother was married and had me at 18, raised me just fine.

 

[NontradCA]

This forum is garbage. Who cares about these semantics. I like how you all dismissed the arrogance and stupidity of daniel craig's post. And yea, if you think 70k is a lot of money, I'm calling you a naive idiot.

 

[W19]

There's nothing wrong with having a kid at 18. Hell, my mother was married and had me at 18, raised me just fine.

I never said it's wrong; however, I said it is NOT the norm... I don't like to make value judgement....

 

[W19]

Only 25% of households make more than 80k per year. The cutoff for being in the top 10% of households is 118.2k. How the hell are those numbers justifiably lower middle class and mid-middle class, respectively?

That 25% make up the mid/upper middle class and the rich/wealthy/mega wealthy then...

 

[NontradCA]

There's nothing wrong with having a kid at 18. Hell, my mother was married and had me at 18, raised me just fine.

There's nothing wrong, but for the most part it's going to make things extremely difficult.

 

[NontradCA]

Only 25% of households make more than 80k per year. The cutoff for being in the top 10% of households is 118.2k. How the hell are those numbers justifiably lower middle class and mid-middle class, respectively?

Good luck putting your kids through school and having a house in a decent area at 118k.

 

[Mad Jack]

Good luck putting your kids through school and having a house in a decent area at 118k.

I didn't know a single family that made anywhere near that growing up, and our parents all owned homes and a couple of new cars, and we made it through school just fine.

You won't be able to live in SF, NYC, or Boston with that kind of money, but suburbia is totally doable.

 

[Mad Jack]

That 25% make up the mid/upper middle class and the rich/wealthy/mega wealthy then...

So you're saying that the middle class, to you, is the people who are on top? Because that isn't really what the middle class is, from any sociological or economic perspective.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Good luck putting your kids through school and having a house in a decent area at 118k.

Hahaha, what?
My parents didn't break 100k combined until after I went to college. My friends parents probably still haven't broken 100k combined. Oddly, none of us lived in shanties, got stabbed at school, nor dealt with violent crime in our town.

There's a big world outside of the city.

 

[W19]

So you're saying that the middle class, to you, is the people who are on top? Because that isn't really what the middle class is, from any sociological or economic perspective.

Ok... When I took sociology, which was about 10 years ago... The #s were:

50k-79.9k : Lower middle class
80k-119.9k: upper middle class

After 10 years, I think these numbers have changed with inflation etc...

 

[DermViser]

That 25% make up the mid/upper middle class and the rich/wealthy/mega wealthy then...

Ok... When I took sociology, which is about 10 years ago... The #s were:

50k-79.9k : Lower middle class
80k-119.9k: upper middle class

After 10 years, I think these numbers have changed with inflation etc...

Ok, since you refuse to Google and seems like you just want to argue, I will actually paste it for you, ok?

 

[W19]

Ok, since you refuse to Google and seems like you just want to argue, I will actually paste it for you, ok?

Again these numbers are not too far from my assertion...

 

[Winged Scapula]

Good luck putting your kids through school and having a house in a decent area at 118k.

What?

None of my employees and their husbands makes over $100K combined and yet all are raising children, have health insurance, and own their own homes in decent, safe, middle class areas. Our office manager put 3 children through ASU as a single mother making $60K.

 

[DermViser]

Again these numbers are not too far from my assertion...

When your figures which you classified as mid to lower middle income and doesn't even include the median income of the country, in the range, then you are wrong.

 

[fancymylotus]

Hahaha, what?
My parents didn't break 100k combined until after I went to college. My friends parents probably still haven't broken 100k combined. Oddly, none of us lived in shanties, got stabbed at school, nor dealt with violent crime in our town.

There's a big world outside of the city.

There's a world outside of my concrete jungle???? Whaaaaaaat?!

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

There's a world outside of my concrete jungle???? Whaaaaaaat?!

I know right? There's also an entire part of the country called "The South", and it's lovely.

 

[W19]

When your figures which you classified as mid to lower middle income and doesn't even include the median income of the country, in the range, then you are wrong.

53k for a family of 4 is not a middle class income IMO because you don't have much (or any) room to breathe financially...

 

[DermViser]

53k for a family of 4 is not a middle class income IMO because you don't have much room (or any) to breathe financially...

53 K is the median income (this number varies by source) in this country. You can consider that "not a middle class income", but you'd be wrong.

 

[circulus vitios]

53k for a family of 4 is not a middle class income IMO because you don't have much (or any) room to breathe financially...

Just admit that you grew up upper middle class/upper class and get it over with. Jesus Christ.

 

[W19]

53 K which is the median income (this varies by source) in this country. You can consider that "not a middle class income", but you'd be wrong.

What do you think then... Give me your numbers!

 

[Winged Scapula]

53k for a family of 4 is not a middle class income IMO because you don't have much (or any) room to breathe financially...

What do you define as "room to breathe?"

 

[DermViser]

What do you think then... Give me you numbers!

I gave you a link that showed you the median income in this country and I gave you a chart that breaks up income into quintiles. What more do you want?

Your numbers 70 K to 100 K fit into the 4th and 5th quintiles, thus making your labeling it as mid/lower middle class false.

 

[W19]

What do you define as "room to breathe?"

Will you be able to survive if you are out of work for 6 months? Can you or your spouse be on maternity leave for 3 months without feeling it? Can you afford swimming/dance lessons for you kids etc...? Can put money toward retirement? etc....

 

[W19]

I gave you a link that showed you the median income in this country and I gave you a chart that breaks up income into quintiles. What more do you want?

Your numbers 70 K to 100 K fit into the 4th and 5th quintiles, thus making your labeling it as mid/lower middle class false.

That's 40%+ ... so I am not far off since your #s are almost 8 years old.

 

[DermViser]

That's 40%+ ... so I am not far off since your #s are almost 8 years old.

Ok, your obvious intent is to annoy me, so I won't be playing your game any longer. 7 years won't change squat. I'm done.

 

[NontradCA]

I didn't know a single family that made anywhere near that growing up, and our parents all owned homes and a couple of new cars, and we made it through school just fine.

You won't be able to live in SF, NYC, or Boston with that kind of money, but suburbia is totally doable.

Yea, your PARENTS. If you haven't noticed housing has gotten more expensive. I'm not talking about SF, NYC, Boston. Suburbia in my anywhere mid sized city is running steep. And I'm sure they're not paying for your medical school tuition. I like how people throw out SF, NYC, Boston but any non podunk place is going to cost you. WS lives in AZ, I don't consider that a good example. Also, it's best to look at where MOST of the population is. Using examples of where people don't live (probably because it's ****ty) is not a good argument. WS also uses the example of one of the cheapest undergrad institutions in the country.

 

[Mad Jack]

I can see what he's getting at. There's a lot of different ways of defining the "middle class." Personally I'm a fan of using the median household family income, adjusted for CoL, plus or minus 20%. There's some sociologists that make the argument that most of America is made up of the working class, and that the middle class is only attained at a certain, relatively high, level of affluence. So it isn't that WS 19 is wrong, per se, just that he has a different frame of reference.

Then there's the 20th-80th percentile "middle class," which is 20k-100k per year, which is just too broad. Hence why I'm a fan of the "This is what an average American family is" middle class, because the median +/-20% is the best representation of how normal Americans live.

 

[circulus vitios]

Will you be able to survive if you are out of work for 6 months? Can you or your spouse be on maternity leave for 3 months without feeling it? Can you afford swimming/dance lessons for you kids etc...? Can put money toward retirement? etc....

You do realize the average American can do little to none of that, right? You're so out of touch with reality.

 

[NontradCA]

You do realize the average American can do little to none of that, right? You're so out of touch with reality.

The average American does not have a bright future.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Yea, your PARENTS. If you haven't noticed housing has gotten more expensive. I'm not talking about SF, NYC, Boston. Suburbia in my anywhere mid sized city is running steep. And I'm sure they're not paying for your medical school tuition. I like how people throw out SF, NYC, Boston but any non podunk place is going to cost you. WS lives in AZ, I don't consider that a good example. Also, it's best to look at where MOST of the population is. Using examples of where people don't live (probably because it's ****ty) is not a good argument. WS also uses the example of one of the cheapest undergrad institutions in the country.

While ASU may be a low cost institution, AZ is not considered a cheap state to live in. Property costs, food costs, transportation (because we no good mass transit, and lots of distance) etc. are above the national average. This is exactly the reason I chose it but I could easily make the argument using my home state, California. It is certainly possible to raise children, educate them and live decently on less than $100K; many of my friends seem to be able to do it. Those making 6 figures are living in nicer areas, private school education for their kids, taking vacations to the Caribbean, etc. - luxuries for most.

 

[DermViser]

You do realize the average American can do little to none of that, right? You're so out of touch with reality.

My favorite part: not being able to afford putting your kid in swimming/dance lessons is somehow not having "room to breathe financially".

 

[NontradCA]

While ASU may be a low cost institution, AZ is not considered a cheap state to live in. Property costs, food costs, transportation (because we no good mass transit, and lots of distance) etc. are above the national average. This is exactly the reason I chose it but I could easily make the argument using my home state, California. It is certainly possible to raise children, educate them and live decently on less than $100K.

No it's not. Most of the people I know in CA making that much are catching their ass. I'm talking either paying 1500+ rent or about to walk away on their mortgages. Arizona is where people go when they want to live more "comfortably", especially from your home state. Even if you're making 200k, that isn't much in terms of CA. And no, you're not sending your kids to private school or UC on less than 100k. CSU? Maybe.

 

[DermViser]

While ASU may be a low cost institution, AZ is not considered a cheap state to live in. Property costs, food costs, transportation (because we no good mass transit, and lots of distance) etc. are above the national average.

That's a good thing IMHO. Drive a car for goodness sakes.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yea, your PARENTS. If you haven't noticed housing has gotten more expensive. I'm not talking about SF, NYC, Boston. Suburbia in my anywhere mid sized city is running steep. And I'm sure they're not paying for your medical school tuition. I like how people throw out SF, NYC, Boston but any non podunk place is going to cost you. WS lives in AZ, I don't consider that a good example. Also, it's best to look at where MOST of the population is. Using examples of where people don't live (probably because it's ****ty) is not a good argument. WS also uses the example of one of the cheapest undergrad institutions in the country.

43% of Americans live in suburbs and 19% of Americans live in rural areas. Only 38% of Americans actually live in cities.

All of my current friends and acquaintances are living in New England. Most are buying their first homes, have inexpensive new or higher-end slightly used vehicles, and are doing fine on their way to their first children. All of them have health insurance, decent TVs and gaming systems, enough money for good food, gym memberships, yoga, whatever. None of their households break 60k a year (though a few lucked out this year with new careers, so the future's looking bright!), and yet I don't see any of them suffering horribly, despite New England's absurd cost of living.

As to paying for school- that's what loans are for. Having your tuition entirely paid for is a privilege afforded mostly to the upper middle class and wealthy, most of us aren't so fortunate. Everyone I know has student loans except the people I know that went into the military. They're just a fact of life in an educational system that is as expensive as ours has become.

 

[Winged Scapula]

My favorite part: not being able to afford putting your kid in swimming/dance lessons is somehow not having "room to breathe financially".

Totally agree. Those are not vital to survival.

Dance lessons are probably a luxury for most.

Swim lessons should be a requirement for every child IMHO. The YMCA usually offers them for $30 or so; less than what it costs a family of 4 to eat dinner out.

 

[DermViser]

And no, you're not sending your kids to private school or UC on less than 100k. CSU? Maybe.

Aren't the UC schools quite cheap in tuition for in-staters?

 

[NontradCA]

My favorite part: not being able to afford putting your kid in swimming/dance lessons is somehow not having "room to breathe financially".

Yea, we should just put them in front of the TV.

 

[Mad Jack]

No it's not. Most of the people I know in CA making that much are catching their ass. I'm talking either paying 1500+ rent or about to walk away on their mortgages. Arizona is where people go when they want to live more "comfortably", especially from your home state. Even if you're making 200k, that isn't much in terms of CA. And no, you're not sending your kids to private school or UC on less than 100k. CSU? Maybe.

Easy solution: Don't live in CA. There's 49 wonderful other states to live in. You're basically murdering yourself financially if you choose to live in a high CoL area when you've got other options.

 

[NontradCA]

43% of Americans live in suburbs and 19% of Americans live in rural areas. Only 38% of Americans actually live in cities.

All of my current friends and acquaintances are living in New England. Most are buying their first homes, have inexpensive new or higher-end slightly used vehicles, and are doing fine on their way to their first children. All of them have health insurance, decent TVs and gaming systems, enough money for good food, gym memberships, yoga, whatever. None of their households break 60k a year (though a few lucked out this year with new careers, so the future's looking bright!), and yet I don't see any of them suffering horribly, despite New England's absurd cost of living.

As to paying for school- that's what loans are for. Having your tuition entirely paid for is a privilege afforded mostly to the upper middle class and wealthy, most of us aren't so fortunate. Everyone I know has student loans except the people I know that went into the military. They're just a fact of life in an educational system that is as expensive as ours has become.

Suburbs are expensive.

And no, that's not what loans are for. Especially when a college degree is becoming more useless.

 

[DermViser]

Totally agree. Those are not vital to survival.

Dance lessons are probably a luxury for most.

Swim lessons should be a requirement for every child IMHO. The YMCA usually offers them for $30 or so; less than what it costs a family of 4 to eat dinner out.

I realized after reading that having a fruitful decision was pointless. I didn't know the YMCA does that for that cheap! That's a great deal!

 

[DermViser]

Suburbs are expensive.

No, they are not.

 

[Mad Jack]

Totally agree. Those are not vital to survival.

Dance lessons are probably a luxury for most.

Swim lessons should be a requirement for every child IMHO. The YMCA usually offers them for $30 or so; less than what it costs a family of 4 to eat dinner out.

The ability to survive a dance battle is a critical life skill.