• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sixty-two percent of jobs don't support middle-class life after accounting for cost of living

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
58,947
Reaction score
50,397
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This is due to government. A free market wouldn't have these issues. Let me guess...your solution is more government?
 
*Working Class smirks*
 
Judging by the salaries I see in the classifieds that doesn’t surprise me.
 
Yes, nearly 2/3rds.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ll-short-middle-class-standard-us/1809629002/

How are people supposed to get ahead when this is what they have to work with? Lemme guess, work harder and take on second and third jobs, amirite?

Also, if you have something negative to say about the study, criticize its methods fairly, don't just say that you don't like it.

I love that you are apparently trying to figure out how Trump got here.

Good Luck.
 
Yes, nearly 2/3rds.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ll-short-middle-class-standard-us/1809629002/

How are people supposed to get ahead when this is what they have to work with? Lemme guess, work harder and take on second and third jobs, amirite?

Also, if you have something negative to say about the study, criticize its methods fairly, don't just say that you don't like it.

Or live in red states with substantially lower costs of living. The median salary in the US is 59k, in most red states you live fairly well with your own home, vehicle, healthcare etc. However, good luck achieving that in many of the blue states.
 
This is due to government. A free market wouldn't have these issues. Let me guess...your solution is more government?

How easy life in your head must be when all your solutions are "get rid of government and it'll magically be better". We can look at examples all over the world of little to no government involvement in the market, and they're all 3rd world **** holes with terrible paying jobs. You can't point to any countries where the libertarian/anarchistic model is employed and isn't a **** hole.
 
This is due to government. A free market wouldn't have these issues...

You base this on what? Historically, it has not been true. Real world it has not been true. Theoretically, it is not true. So what are you basing your claim on?
 
How are people supposed to get ahead when this is what they have to work with? Lemme guess, work harder and take on second and third jobs, amirite?

Also, if you have something negative to say about the study, criticize its methods fairly, don't just say that you don't like it.
Maybe the problem is the definition of middle-class? Maybe expectations and ideas of what we actually need or want are what is out of whack with reality? I find it telling that their sole definition of middle-class is a raw income measure yet traditionally class distinctions were more about what you did and how you did it more than how much you paid to do it (not that this was always a good thing either). It just seems like a distraction from what is actually important to a living a good life by whatever qualitative measurable you might personally value.
 
How easy life in your head must be when all your solutions are "get rid of government and it'll magically be better". We can look at examples all over the world of little to no government involvement in the market, and they're all 3rd world **** holes with terrible paying jobs. You can't point to any countries where the libertarian/anarchistic model is employed and isn't a **** hole.

It's very easy. You're showing some aptitude to notice that.

As for examples of a completely free market, there aren't any. A computer game called EVE was the closest I've ever seen, and that was just a simulation.
 
You base this on what? Historically, it has not been true. Real world it has not been true. Theoretically, it is not true. So what are you basing your claim on?

You don't want to look at history, which shows all governments eventually fail. You don't want to look at the present, which shows how governments are currently in debt and on the way to failure. Theory is all we have, since you guys won't let anarchy happen, and we disagree on what the theory says.
 
Maybe the problem is the definition of middle-class? Maybe expectations and ideas of what we actually need or want are what is out of whack with reality? I find it telling that their sole definition of middle-class is a raw income measure yet traditionally class distinctions were more about what you did and how you did it more than how much you paid to do it (not that this was always a good thing either). It just seems like a distraction from what is actually important to a living a good life by whatever qualitative measurable you might personally value.

Middle class to me = home owner.

Family of 4, house, 2.5 kids.

In CT, median salary is something like 55k...median house price is over 200k. Bit of a problem, that.
 
How easy life in your head must be when all your solutions are "get rid of government and it'll magically be better". We can look at examples all over the world of little to no government involvement in the market, and they're all 3rd world **** holes with terrible paying jobs. You can't point to any countries where the libertarian/anarchistic model is employed and isn't a **** hole.
****hole nation...

Are we now allowed to actually use that term? Or only your side? Which countries are you describing... and is it because of racism you say that? I am sure you were not a hypocrite calling out Trump for his, not even proven, so called use of the term... right?

Riiiiiight.

So, might you maybe describe these nations of which you speak? Good use of your education, yano? :lamo
 
Yes, nearly 2/3rds.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ll-short-middle-class-standard-us/1809629002/

How are people supposed to get ahead when this is what they have to work with? Lemme guess, work harder and take on second and third jobs, amirite?

Also, if you have something negative to say about the study, criticize its methods fairly, don't just say that you don't like it.

It's all about choices.

A factory machinist in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, earns an average $45,470 a year, more than enough to meet the $40,046 threshold for a middle-class job in that area.

A similar machinist makes more – $57,220 on average – in San Francisco, but that’s far short of the $82,142 minimum for a middle-class job in that area, according to the report. It costs an average $32,440 a year to rent a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco, compared with $7,368 in Cedar Rapids.

If you were that machinist, what would be the best choice for you regarding where you live?

Of course, the choice isn't that simple. There are other factors involved in making the choice that require setting priorities and making trade-offs. But still...it all comes down to choices.
 
Or live in red states with substantially lower costs of living. The median salary in the US is 59k, in most red states you live fairly well with your own home, vehicle, healthcare etc. However, good luck achieving that in many of the blue states.
Red states are loaded with rural areas which have a big housing crisis and lack of access to health care. Red states are also infested with things like hookworm. (See: Alabama)

Also as a testament to how terribly poorly thought out your suggestion is.. would you like to speculate on what will happen to RENTS in red states if people start migrating there?

Hint: rents will go up. WAY up.
 
****hole nation...
Are we now allowed to actually use that term? Or only your side? Which countries are you describing... and is it because of racism you say that? I am sure you were not a hypocrite calling out Trump for his, not even proven, so called use of the term... right?
Riiiiiight.
So, might you maybe describe these nations of which you speak? Good use of your education, yano? :lamo

We agree. Nations that adopt libertarian or anarchist policies are **** holes. We need to fight to keep those kind of ideologues out.
 
You don't want to look at history, which shows all governments eventually fail. You don't want to look at the present, which shows how governments are currently in debt and on the way to failure. Theory is all we have, since you guys won't let anarchy happen, and we disagree on what the theory says.
Somalia has no government. Why not move there?

Ah, I forgot, those pesky dark skinned Africans, right?
 
You don't want to look at history, which shows all governments eventually fail. You don't want to look at the present, which shows how governments are currently in debt and on the way to failure. Theory is all we have, since you guys won't let anarchy happen, and we disagree on what the theory says.
Somalia has no government. Why not move there?
Ah, I forgot, those pesky dark skinned Africans, right?

Anarchon wants his country to be the white man's Somalia.
 
Anarchon wants his country to be the white man's Somalia.
He doesn't even realize that his anarchy utopia will turn dystopia in about a week. Why?

1) Masses of brown people called "illegals" today will stream into his territory, what with the total lack of an army that said Anarchy will need to stop them. (Anarchists would call "lots of brown neighbors" a total failure condition.)

2) Mafias of every sort will carry away fully half the women in that place and traffic them here, there and everywhere. Anarchists will try and shoot them down and be massacred.

One single week and it will all be over.
 
Middle class to me = home owner.

Family of 4, house, 2.5 kids.

In CT, median salary is something like 55k...median house price is over 200k. Bit of a problem, that.
Well four times income is the top end of an acceptable mortgage ratio but not unachievable. It still continues my question of whether you need a house that expensive to be middle class? You could be a home owner with a $100k house but would the resultant quality, size and/or location of home still meet your idea (or ideal?) of "middle class"?
 
If you want a good life, buy a house when you are young, don't spend what you haven't got, and don't have children. It really is that simple
 
If you want a good life, buy a house when you are young, don't spend what you haven't got, and don't have children. It really is that simple

LOL buy a house with what, monopoly money?
 
WOuld you like the short answer?

Yes.

Work harder. Work 2 and 3 jobs. Bust your ass. Curb your spending. Live within your means. Prepare for a future. It may take 10, 15, 20 years to build your self up to a status where you only need to work one job, especially if your parents didnt prepare themselves for a future and if you didnt as well. ESPECIALLY if you went to college and ran up debt on a worthless degree you will never use.

Yes.

Guess what. Its no different today than it was yesterday.
 
WOuld you like the short answer?

Yes.

Work harder. Work 2 and 3 jobs.
That's a 16 to 24 hour work day. What kind of idiot even suggests that? Oh, wait...

Oh and 2 to 3 jobs is stlll not enough to afford a home in this economy.

Bust your ass. Curb your spending.
You could starve yourself by spending nothing at all. More than half of the available jobs in America pay under 30K a year. That means no matter how hard you bust your ass it is mathematically impossible for half of America's citizens to earn over 30k a year. Let me repeat that for you: it is mathematically impossible no matter what the **** you do, to save up for a home even with 3 full time jobs, which means working 24 hours a day with no rest whatsoever.

Math, son, learn it. It pisses on your 1-dimensional simpleton arguments.

It may take 10, 15, 20 years to build your self up to a status where you only need to work one job, especially if your parents didnt prepare themselves for a future and if you didnt as well. ESPECIALLY if you went to college and ran up debt on a worthless degree you will never use.
Working 2 to 3 full time jobs will see you dead in 15.

And if everyone became an engineer do you even know how many engineering job openings there are out there? Answer: not enough.

Again math spits in your face - half of the jobs out there pay under 30K a year. That's not going to change if everyone gets an engineering degree or a medical license, etc. It will only mean a ton of unemployed doctors and engineers.

Literally everything you said was stupid as hell and dead wrong in terms of THIS economy. You are quite literally living in the past.
 
Back
Top Bottom