Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lower middle class is a family of 3-4 making between $150,000 and 250,000. The people who are really struggling to get by.

We are at the low end of this and not struggling a bit. We vacation several times a year, and live in a nice townhome in a nice VA neighborhood, good school district. Reasonable, safe cars. Good health care. Decent clothes, reasonable phone plans (no smart phones). Out to eat about once a month. We raise our own kids, clean our own home, cut our own lawn, garden our own area.

Happy family, good life.

It CAN be done in this area. But most people would rather live on credit outside their means and also farm out the necessities and then cry about how they struggle.

Something about "raising your own kids, cleaning your own home" makes me think that you have a SAH parent in the picture... true? if so, there's a big difference between earning $150K by one person, versus two people each earning $75K and paying for child care.

Anonymous wrote:

But research says intelligence is not hereditary. Smart people can get a dumb kid. Stupid people can have an intelligent child.

Intelligence, to the contrary, is shown to be highly hereditary. However eye color is also hereditary. But it is possible for two brown eyed parents to have a blue eyed child. Just because it's hereditary does not preclude situations such as smart people having a dumb kid and stupid people having a smart kid.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142841.htm

That article is about brain processing speed and how that is determined by genes, and a twin study
It did not expand to say if the identical twins shared the same iq and were similarly accomplished. And it did not talk about how those genes are inherited.
All genes are inherited, but you still need boy and girl ingredients to make a baby, the outcome is a baby, no guarantee of a higher than normal intelligence

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm. Can't some of you figure out that "LMC" folks may have different savings strategies, educational approaches, etc based on their incomes and backgrounds? If my parents had more money, they would've probably had different investment strategies. But they didn't, so they chose the most conservative path. Regarding schools, my parents did not go to college, so they were less skilled in guiding me along the application process. That doesn't translate, however, into they didn't care about what I was doing or they placed less value on it, just only that they lacked a background in the area. It takes a village to raise a child and life can be a lot more forgiving - and less expensive - if your relative, who live around the corner, are able to cover for you during times of crises.

I think this is something that people who have money, grew up with money, et cetera, just don't get. My parents didn't earn a lot, but they saved every penny they could and budgeted well. But because they were worried about periods of unemployment and because every dollar was earned with blood, sweat and tears, they were extremely risk-averse. The reason wealthy people invest better is because they can invest better. They can take more risks because the losses aren't felt as hard or as painfully as they would be with a family who doesn't have a large salary and has no hope of ever inheriting much.

But I have found that people who grew up with money just don't grasp that. It's a shame, because it's a big part of what makes upward mobility difficult. It's partly why it can be a difficult upward climb to grow wealth. If you don't have huge salary potential, even if you scrimp and save, it's very difficult to grow wealth in a substantial way because making your money really work for you requires at least having something significant to invest, and being able to risk losing some, and also being able to comfortably put that money in an investment mechanism where it is not liquid. The lower class people I've known who have been savers were also worried about layoffs, strikes, being unemployed, and so they viewed their savings as something they needed to have access to and not something that they could risk having tied up in investments. And of course, traditional savings accounts don't yield a lot in the way of interest. Even high interest savings accounts don't really yield a lot in terms of interest.

And I would add that a lot of lower income/class people are highly suspicious of financial advisers. It isn't because they don't value education or don't think they have any expertise. It's because most often it becomes very clear that most financial advisers don't fully understand the needs and worries of working class people. There's a disconnect.

But research says intelligence is not hereditary. Smart people can get a dumb kid. Stupid people can have an intelligent child.

Intelligence, to the contrary, is shown to be highly hereditary. However eye color is also hereditary. But it is possible for two brown eyed parents to have a blue eyed child. Just because it's hereditary does not preclude situations such as smart people having a dumb kid and stupid people having a smart kid.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142841.htm

Anonymous wrote:My husband grew up lower middle class. All four of his grandparents were working class. I grew up middle to upper middle class. One interesting difference is that my MIL does not know how to set a table, so neither does DH. He and his family see money as something to spend, not something to invest.

I grew up working class, as did my husband. My parents were able to slowly move up, though. They were hard workers.

And because they worked so hard, they were actually very strong savers. My father was really big on not carrying debt, not buying things you don't need, saving for a rainy day. He frequently faced the threat of layoffs or strikes, so he was very careful with money.

I think it's wrong to make generalizations about "upper class people save money" or "lower class people spend." It varies. I know some middle to upper class people who don't know how to live within their means and are horrible with money. They are still ahead of some lower class people simply because they've had help -- help with down payments, help with college. I also have known smart people who are middle/upper class and have high paying jobs but can't seem to manage their money and are always in debt. But I would never say that all middle/upper class people are bad with money, because I also know plenty of people who are middle/upper and good with money.

The same goes for lower class. Growing up, I had relatives who were horrible with money. And I also had my parents and other relatives and friends (and my husband's family as well) who are lower class, hardworking, strong savers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) The distinction between LMC and UMC families ties seems a little self-serving. I've seen plenty of disfunctional LMC families, the reason they are LMC is because neither parent can hold down a job. I also think the divorce rate and the rate of unwed moms is higher in LMC. Not judging, just saying.
2) LMC college grads aren't necessarily smarter, because there's a lot of research showing IQ and verbal skills are correlated with family SES..

Where do you get your research from? I really would like to know. A childs intelligence and verbal skills are not related to family income or social economic standing. A lot of lower income people are raising their child bilingual. That itself is a huge advantage the wealthy do not have

Sarah Palin spent $250K on her wardrobe during the presidential campaign and her daughter had a baby out of wedlock

Intelligence of a child is correlated to the education level of the mother.

But research says intelligence is not hereditary. Smart people can get a dumb kid. Stupid people can have an intelligent child.

Link please.

It looks like some upper middle class people have not learned to google.
Upper middle class people grow up very protected and sheltered, ignorant in a way. They also do not question, but accept the social norms as facts and take things for granted. There is no desire to question the boundaries and in a way are very naïve and arrogant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) The distinction between LMC and UMC families ties seems a little self-serving. I've seen plenty of disfunctional LMC families, the reason they are LMC is because neither parent can hold down a job. I also think the divorce rate and the rate of unwed moms is higher in LMC. Not judging, just saying.
2) LMC college grads aren't necessarily smarter, because there's a lot of research showing IQ and verbal skills are correlated with family SES..

Where do you get your research from? I really would like to know. A childs intelligence and verbal skills are not related to family income or social economic standing. A lot of lower income people are raising their child bilingual. That itself is a huge advantage the wealthy do not have

Sarah Palin spent $250K on her wardrobe during the presidential campaign and her daughter had a baby out of wedlock

Intelligence of a child is correlated to the education level of the mother.

But research says intelligence is not hereditary. Smart people can get a dumb kid. Stupid people can have an intelligent child.

Of course, it is not a guarantee, it is a correlation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) The distinction between LMC and UMC families ties seems a little self-serving. I've seen plenty of disfunctional LMC families, the reason they are LMC is because neither parent can hold down a job. I also think the divorce rate and the rate of unwed moms is higher in LMC. Not judging, just saying.
2) LMC college grads aren't necessarily smarter, because there's a lot of research showing IQ and verbal skills are correlated with family SES..

Where do you get your research from? I really would like to know. A childs intelligence and verbal skills are not related to family income or social economic standing. A lot of lower income people are raising their child bilingual. That itself is a huge advantage the wealthy do not have

Sarah Palin spent $250K on her wardrobe during the presidential campaign and her daughter had a baby out of wedlock

Intelligence of a child is correlated to the education level of the mother.

But research says intelligence is not hereditary. Smart people can get a dumb kid. Stupid people can have an intelligent child.

Link please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) The distinction between LMC and UMC families ties seems a little self-serving. I've seen plenty of disfunctional LMC families, the reason they are LMC is because neither parent can hold down a job. I also think the divorce rate and the rate of unwed moms is higher in LMC. Not judging, just saying.
2) LMC college grads aren't necessarily smarter, because there's a lot of research showing IQ and verbal skills are correlated with family SES..

Where do you get your research from? I really would like to know. A childs intelligence and verbal skills are not related to family income or social economic standing. A lot of lower income people are raising their child bilingual. That itself is a huge advantage the wealthy do not have

Sarah Palin spent $250K on her wardrobe during the presidential campaign and her daughter had a baby out of wedlock

Intelligence of a child is correlated to the education level of the mother.

But research says intelligence is not hereditary. Smart people can get a dumb kid. Stupid people can have an intelligent child.

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself LMC or maybe middle-middle class. In my mind, UMC is Chevy Chase, Upper NW, McLean. We eschew shopping at high end stores. Our kids wear Old Navy or Target. We live in a neighborhood of mechanics, HVAC dudes, low level govt employees. Our school is not a "great school." We are not hyper involved in PTA fundraising so that our public resembles a private. We don't host progressive dinners. We shop at Giant, not Whole Foods. There are a lot of republicans in this neighborhood who probably should be voting Dem if they were voting their own economic self-interest. We go big for tacky holiday decorations, pickup trucks, the Redskins. When I go to UMC neighborhoods, I feel uncomfortable. However I traveled up to Glen Burnie once, that felt like home to me. My husband and I have advanced degrees, but regardless, I wouldn't fit in in the nicer neighborhoods.

I'm UMC and I agree that I don't feel comfortable in LMC neighborhoods. Too tacky and loud.

My husband grew up lower middle class. All four of his grandparents were working class. I grew up middle to upper middle class. One interesting difference is that my MIL does not know how to set a table, so neither does DH. He and his family see money as something to spend, not something to invest.

I consider myself LMC or maybe middle-middle class. In my mind, UMC is Chevy Chase, Upper NW, McLean. We eschew shopping at high end stores. Our kids wear Old Navy or Target. We live in a neighborhood of mechanics, HVAC dudes, low level govt employees. Our school is not a "great school." We are not hyper involved in PTA fundraising so that our public resembles a private. We don't host progressive dinners. We shop at Giant, not Whole Foods. There are a lot of republicans in this neighborhood who probably should be voting Dem if they were voting their own economic self-interest. We go big for tacky holiday decorations, pickup trucks, the Redskins. When I go to UMC neighborhoods, I feel uncomfortable. However I traveled up to Glen Burnie once, that felt like home to me. My husband and I have advanced degrees, but regardless, I wouldn't fit in in the nicer neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) The distinction between LMC and UMC families ties seems a little self-serving. I've seen plenty of disfunctional LMC families, the reason they are LMC is because neither parent can hold down a job. I also think the divorce rate and the rate of unwed moms is higher in LMC. Not judging, just saying.
2) LMC college grads aren't necessarily smarter, because there's a lot of research showing IQ and verbal skills are correlated with family SES..

Where do you get your research from? I really would like to know. A childs intelligence and verbal skills are not related to family income or social economic standing. A lot of lower income people are raising their child bilingual. That itself is a huge advantage the wealthy do not have

Sarah Palin spent $250K on her wardrobe during the presidential campaign and her daughter had a baby out of wedlock

Intelligence of a child is correlated to the education level of the mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) The distinction between LMC and UMC families ties seems a little self-serving. I've seen plenty of disfunctional LMC families, the reason they are LMC is because neither parent can hold down a job. I also think the divorce rate and the rate of unwed moms is higher in LMC. Not judging, just saying.
2) LMC college grads aren't necessarily smarter, because there's a lot of research showing IQ and verbal skills are correlated with family SES..

Where do you get your research from? I really would like to know. A childs intelligence and verbal skills are not related to family income or social economic standing. A lot of lower income people are raising their child bilingual. That itself is a huge advantage the wealthy do not have

Sarah Palin spent $250K on her wardrobe during the presidential campaign and her daughter had a baby out of wedlock

Sarah Palin is LMC.