Rich+poor now outnumber the middle class

[Anonymous]

And it's getting worse.


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/

[Anonymous]

Well, not to deny it, but they considered the rich to be 126k and above. 42k-126k was middle class. So that could skew the numbers somewhat. In this area 126k doesn't buy you as much as it would in rural America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, not to deny it, but they considered the rich to be 126k and above. 42k-126k was middle class. So that could skew the numbers somewhat. In this area 126k doesn't buy you as much as it would in rural America.

Regardless of what you believe it buys "in this area", you have to understand that the middle class incomes in this area (both mean and medium) are below 100k.

[Anonymous]

Shouldn't be suprised. Many segments of our population do not value education. Only 85% of Americans graduate high school and 30% graduate college.

Of those 85% who graduate high school, how many are just pushed through?

Take DCPS for example. Many kids entering high school ate reading at a 4th grade level.

No shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, not to deny it, but they considered the rich to be 126k and above. 42k-126k was middle class. So that could skew the numbers somewhat. In this area 126k doesn't buy you as much as it would in rural America.

Regardless of what you believe it buys "in this area", you have to understand that the middle class incomes in this area (both mean and medium) are below 100k.

Using Pew's methodology but applying it to the DC Metro area, the "middle class" range would be $60K - $180K. That's based on a median income of $90K for the DC metro area (2013 census) with the lower boundary of 2/3's of median and upper boundary of double the median.

I know, I know, you make $250K and think you are middle class. You aren't (I'm not either -- that's about my HH income)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, not to deny it, but they considered the rich to be 126k and above. 42k-126k was middle class. So that could skew the numbers somewhat. In this area 126k doesn't buy you as much as it would in rural America.

Regardless of what you believe it buys "in this area", you have to understand that the middle class incomes in this area (both mean and medium) are below 100k.

Using Pew's methodology but applying it to the DC Metro area, the "middle class" range would be $60K - $180K. That's based on a median income of $90K for the DC metro area (2013 census) with the lower boundary of 2/3's of median and upper boundary of double the median.

I know, I know, you make $250K and think you are middle class. You aren't (I'm not either -- that's about my HH income)

Wrong again. DC area lower class is up to 150k, middle class is 150k to about 500k. Upper middle is 500k - 2MM.

[Anonymous]

It's really not surprising, but not because of the commonly blamed reasons.

As they taught us on Sesame Street, "household" can mean many different things. On the high end, you have a steadily increasing proportion of married couples who now have two incomes. On the low end, you have a steadily increasing proportion of single-parent households. The end. Plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, not to deny it, but they considered the rich to be 126k and above. 42k-126k was middle class. So that could skew the numbers somewhat. In this area 126k doesn't buy you as much as it would in rural America.

Regardless of what you believe it buys "in this area", you have to understand that the middle class incomes in this area (both mean and medium) are below 100k.

Using Pew's methodology but applying it to the DC Metro area, the "middle class" range would be $60K - $180K. That's based on a median income of $90K for the DC metro area (2013 census) with the lower boundary of 2/3's of median and upper boundary of double the median.

I know, I know, you make $250K and think you are middle class. You aren't (I'm not either -- that's about my HH income)

Wrong again. DC area lower class is up to 150k, middle class is 150k to about 500k. Upper middle is 500k - 2MM.

Yep -- all those gov't attys making 150k. Lower class. Every last one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, not to deny it, but they considered the rich to be 126k and above. 42k-126k was middle class. So that could skew the numbers somewhat. In this area 126k doesn't buy you as much as it would in rural America.

Regardless of what you believe it buys "in this area", you have to understand that the middle class incomes in this area (both mean and medium) are below 100k.

Using Pew's methodology but applying it to the DC Metro area, the "middle class" range would be $60K - $180K. That's based on a median income of $90K for the DC metro area (2013 census) with the lower boundary of 2/3's of median and upper boundary of double the median.

I know, I know, you make $250K and think you are middle class. You aren't (I'm not either -- that's about my HH income)

Wrong again. DC area lower class is up to 150k, middle class is 150k to about 500k. Upper middle is 500k - 2MM.

Not to disagree with you, but what's the source on this? Or is this your opinion of the breakdown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, not to deny it, but they considered the rich to be 126k and above. 42k-126k was middle class. So that could skew the numbers somewhat. In this area 126k doesn't buy you as much as it would in rural America.

Regardless of what you believe it buys "in this area", you have to understand that the middle class incomes in this area (both mean and medium) are below 100k.

Using Pew's methodology but applying it to the DC Metro area, the "middle class" range would be $60K - $180K. That's based on a median income of $90K for the DC metro area (2013 census) with the lower boundary of 2/3's of median and upper boundary of double the median.

I know, I know, you make $250K and think you are middle class. You aren't (I'm not either -- that's about my HH income)

Wrong again. DC area lower class is up to 150k, middle class is 150k to about 500k. Upper middle is 500k - 2MM.

Yep -- all those gov't attys making 150k. Lower class. Every last one of them.

And those biglaw junior associates at 160k -- barely scraping their way into middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's really not surprising, but not because of the commonly blamed reasons.

As they taught us on Sesame Street, "household" can mean many different things. On the high end, you have a steadily increasing proportion of married couples who now have two incomes. On the low end, you have a steadily increasing proportion of single-parent households. The end. Plain and simple.

If you actually looked at the link you would have seen that they accounted for household size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really not surprising, but not because of the commonly blamed reasons.

As they taught us on Sesame Street, "household" can mean many different things. On the high end, you have a steadily increasing proportion of married couples who now have two incomes. On the low end, you have a steadily increasing proportion of single-parent households. The end. Plain and simple.

If you actually looked at the link you would have seen that they accounted for household size.

The household size in the article was a family of three, right? What would it be for a family of four? I'm curious why they chose a family of 3. The average number of kids per family is closer to 2 than 1.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious to know where the middle class cited in this study migrated to (lower or upper class). That would be a more relevant statistic, than simply noting the middle class is shrinking. If migration is more proportional to the upper class, then this would be a good thing, would it not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really not surprising, but not because of the commonly blamed reasons.

As they taught us on Sesame Street, "household" can mean many different things. On the high end, you have a steadily increasing proportion of married couples who now have two incomes. On the low end, you have a steadily increasing proportion of single-parent households. The end. Plain and simple.

If you actually looked at the link you would have seen that they accounted for household size.

The household size in the article was a family of three, right? What would it be for a family of four? I'm curious why they chose a family of 3. The average number of kids per family is closer to 2 than 1.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/st_2015-12-09_middle-class-02/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Wrong again. DC area lower class is up to 150k, middle class is 150k to about 500k. Upper middle is 500k - 2MM.

Wow, you really are disconnected from the real world.