As it’s defined by the vast majority of the country, this is fundamentally and definitively wrong
I have money that works for me AND a W-2. Which one am I?
Go to the inner city and you’ll find plenty of well adjusted, who in the future will be productive citizens, children raised by stay at home moms.
Can you maintain your desired lifestyle while working zero hours? If not you’re working class and thus not financially independent, yet.
Do I get to tell my wife she’s stuck living in my preferred lifestyle or does she actually have to agree?
Joke aside, it’s just a pet peeve of mine when people say there’s no middle class. It’s like my herpderp uncle when he says there’s no such thing as assault rifles.
1 Like
The myth of the middle class for me is that it’s more secure. Just because you get a degree and a good job and put money in a 401k/IRA you’re somehow more secure than “the poor.”
For the vast majority of the middle class and how they build their lives, they are a few paychecks away from bankruptcy with no savings and will end up working full time well into their late 60’s early 70’s.
Ask your average coworker how secure that feels.
2 Likes
That’s because you’re equating middle class with “financial security.” Financial security is a choice made with your income. My grandparents know next to nothing and have always worked uneducated low skill jobs but they’re financially secure.
The middle class is simply an income bracket. The myth you’re talking about is because of the common view of the middle class. People assume “making it” to the middle class means they’ll be financially secure. They only think that because they’re idiots and don’t understand what financial security actually means.
Edit: “Rich” people, as you’ve defined them, also aren’t financially secure simply by being rich enough that their money can make money.
1 Like
I defined it as passive income covering your preferred lifestyle.
As nerdy as it sounds I could discuss what constitutes rich for hours over a few bourbons.
The most interesting definition I’ve heard is the definition of “affluent” that basically said a population is affluent if they spend less than half their waking hours providing for basic needs (food/water/shelter/clothes). Thus more leisure time = more affluent.
That brings up the interesting observation that certain “dirt poor” hunter gatherers who play up to 6 hours a day are the most affluent people on earth.
Are the FIRE people who save up $500k and live off <$20k/year rich?
All interesting. Then we could argue about if the USA is really a classed society in the classical sense like India and Europe. In the US, if a poor person makes $1Billion, they are upper class like magic. What country club wouldn’t let Bill Gates join because he isn’t a blue blood?
I dunno @pfury we’ve gone like 5 posts now without the T word. Something is wrong.
1 Like
Trump is an asshat. Carry on.
2 Likes
How much did a house cost when your grandparents were young?
Haha doesn’t sound so bad actually.
I wouldn’t say the USA is classed in that sense. The melting pot aspect kinda forced that into a monetary scale. It was all that’s really left after it stopped being classy to hate brown people.
I daresay Bill could join any country club on the planet haha. But good point.
They built it, with the help of some Amish people that used to have a small town a few miles away from them. It’s maybe 800 sqft but they have a decent bit of land
1 Like
I knew when I typed it, “middle-class” is not what I was truly thinking of, probably something more like “working class”, or middle-upper class. Fuck no, $55k ain’t enough to support more than 2 people total. But like you were alluding to, if we pulled back on indulgences we might be surprised by what is feasible.
Everyone. I’m saying that if parents spent more time, or were able to (financially) spend more time with their kids, we would all be better off.
Know? I don’t know. I have seen kids who are raised in day-care. My sister and I never went to day-care, we are doing alright for ourselves…I have also seen kids raised by (bad) parents who don’t turn out well. I’m not sure we need to dissect the small topic of parenting decent kids right here right now, but I’d hope you would agree that the world would be better off in general if at least one parent was able to be there with a kid all day from 0-5 yrs old, and no kids were sent to day-care.
True, I’d have more faith that it would be currently possible if the stats on adults savings accounts in America showed that we weren’t living paycheck to paycheck. Now why are so many living paycheck to paycheck? Whenever I see articles that cover this I always read it. From what I’ve seen, there’s a lot of people making decent money, just making very poor decisions. This tells me that the utopia would in fact be possible (currently), we just need some financial literacy and discipline.
I don’t.
I used to think along the same lines as you until I put my boys in daycare. The socialization with other children (older & younger) is worth the money alone. I’m wholly convinced my oldest would not be as far along as he is without daycare. It’s the whole “it takes a village” thing.
Of course, experiences will vary and the value a center provides will vary, but the same can be said of stay at home parents, which you allude to.
I’m sure that’s true, but, as I said before, half of US households make <$55K. That’s paycheck to paycheck money in 2018 (depending on where you live of course) for the most part. Factor in taxes and you’re probably only coming home with 80% of that (I think that’s generous). After spending on essentials there’s not much left for savings.
That’s just a reality for a lot of people even in a country as wealthy as ours.
I think higher financial literacy and discipline are steps in the right direction, but you can’t pay yourself without an income source and, like I said, a coal mine/assembly line in every town seems unlikely to me without a significant and painful shift in the economy. That is why I say your idea is more a lovely utopia than possible reality.
2 Likes
Didn’t mean to skip this.
Sure, but if people start spending less on indulgences, there are fewer indulgence makers, which means fewer indulgence employers, which means less employment. The economy is subject to cause and effect like anything else.
For example, everything Apple produces is an indulgence, imo. They employ 47,000 people. How about McDonald’s I’d consider that an indulgence. That’s 300,000 US employees. So on and so forth. It would be difficult to comprehend the disruption this would cause the global economy.
We’ve had these discussions on here before and I don’t disagree that we over-indulge or that there are a lot of things to dislike about our economy, but there is always a flip side to the coin and it’s not always pretty either.
It would be very painful and there would be a lot of resistance to a significant shift away from consumptionism. I honestly don’t see it happening short of a significant and likely devastating catalyst.
1 Like
In an attempt to bring this full circle…
If the price of things in general goes up (tarrifs etc.), I’d hope this would force us to slow down our indulgence. Iphone running a little slow? You can’t afford the now $2k new iphone, so you’ll have to hang with your old slow phone for a while at least (or take a loan out I suppose). So less products purchased, less produced, less employment, less inflation (?). More time (for the unemployed) to spend with family, or do whatever. ugh, I feel like a commie as I type this. It’s like there’s a wheel that goes around, we can make it turn faster (more consumption and employment, and profit for shareholders, CEOs, executives etc.), or we can move it a little slower and still be (most people in general) be in the same position by making/spending less.
Maybe the tarrifs will force the wheel to slow down a bit?
Furthermore, I suppose we throw a wrench in the wheel when we play our role in the economy (are employed), but instead of spending we save our money, that’s interesting.
pffft save money thats un American… Our economy is built on all of us living way outside our means… We need a good crash… Tax breaks for rich and realestate dump sounds like the perfect storm to me… Whats wrong yall dont like Versace ?
2 Likes
Or less time if you need to find a second job just to make ends me.
Like I said, there’s always a flip side.
I think there’s an alternative solution. Give US corporations a break on their corporate tax rate of up to 100% (do something similar for pass-through entities) if they switch from imported raw goods, like steel, for example, or use American made (steel) or possibly NAFTA produced materials.
By taking this approach US companies save money or, at a minimum, breakeven on their raw materials. However, you could see a re-emergence of US steel and other industries as the demand for US made grows.
You kill two birds with one stone. You put pressure on China to not be dicks as they see the demand for their production drop and you increase employment in the US.
It’s a win for everyone; except, potentially the US government who will lose tax revenue and I doubt the increase in employment would make up the difference.
So, it’ll never happen…
1 Like
For a long time I didn’t want to believe it. I now see how much the guys at the top prosper when we don’t save, and how it’s in their best interest for us to spend and not save.
But whose responsibility is this? Isn’t it our responsibility to save our own money? We’ve been feeding the banks for too long, it’s our fault.
I’ve been listening to a lot of RATM recently, feels odd as a conservative/republican.
1 Like
Same. Since my wife & I were both working, our first son was in daycare from infancy. That doesn’t mean, by any stretch, he was ignored by his parents. His teachers there were awesome and we knew them well. He went into kindergarten extremely well socialized, knew all his letters and numbers and has thrived in school, sports, everything since. He’s now a very well-adjusted, smart 12 year old that we’re both close to.
Our second son didn’t do the same. He spent some time in daycare from 3 on. He wasn’t as well socialized and not up on letters/numbers like our first. He’s a smart kid and doing well, but it’s one reason we waited until he was 6 to start kindergarten (has a late summer birthday).
They’re obviously not identical twins and this is anecdotal, but I think our first definitely got a leg up because of daycare, and not to the detriment of our relationship with him.
3 Likes
Can I like this post a dozen times? Apple, a toymaker essentially… has the largest market cap on earth. I think we all know why that is.
@carbiduis Consumerism isn’t going anywhere. If anything it is spreading to other continents. People like stuff. Once you nail down food/water/shelter/clothing then they want to be entertained. Either join in or learn how to profit from other people’s consumerism.
Also, we chose to keep the wife home with the kids and live on less. Because they’re only little once and that was important to us. That doesn’t mean every kid who goes to daycare ends up a mal-adjusted monster.
I understand the social aspect, that is where daycare comes out ahead, I agree. But apart from that I get the feeling that there is no sense of individualism since the kid is just one of many, and they see that. Do the caretakers really get a chance to make them feel like they are valuable? It may take a village, but I’d rather not drop my kid off in the village and pick him up later.
I see it as the first phase of social media. The kid is trained to move with the group, it’s what they know and what they are used to.
I look back at what my mom did for me, paul harvey and classical music while I went and ran errands with her. She gave me a book of math problems that I did and she would grade them. I’d watched her cook, even helped and did plenty of real chores (don’t exist at daycare) among other things like playing outside with the 7 neighbor kids.
1 Like