Senator McCaskill calls a relatively wealthy couple 'middle class'

[hfojvt]

On the PBS Newshour she says the Democratic party should 'focus on the middle class'. She continues and brings up lobbying, that nobody is lobbying for the middle class. For example, she says, a couple with a combined income of $80,000 and three children who are trying to make ends meet.

Here's household income from the census bureau via Wiki

28% with income under $25,000
26.65% more with income under $50,000
18.27% more with incomes under $75,000

74.73% make less than $80,000

If $80,000 is in the middle, it's the high end of the middle. It would be nice if legislators would lower their sights a little. Think about families making $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000, not to mention those under $30,000.

[Captain Hilts]

1. It IS middle class if you live in a coastal state. nt

[hfojvt]

8. median income in New Jersey is $67,035

or $13,000 less than that. In California it is only $59,948. In Oregon only $48,730 and in South Carolina only $43,329.

Major metropolitan areas can be expensive in any state, even Milwaukee, Wi is quite pricey, and $80,000 will not go nearly as far as it would in my city. Still, even in cities, the vast majority is making much less than $80,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

[qazplm]

12. first of all

The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.

Now that means that for the parents alone the median is already over 52K

Throw in three kids of indeterminate age and you see that they are quite clearly going to fall well within the median.
If just one of those three kids is over 15 you are at 78K which for intents and purposes is 80K.

Which is pretty darn close to the median if you ask me.

[Hannah Bell]

27. Stats on median household income are adjusted for household size.

80K/year is nowhere near median in any state. That "median income per household member" is an agglomeate statistic, an artifact of higher income households having fewer members; it doesn't represent real life situations.

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new02_001.htm

2007 Census bureau stats show 50K as US median income, 68K as highest state median, in MD.

[qazplm]

2. five people on 80K a year aint that much

First of all having three kids already puts you over the average sized family.

Second that household income does it include all households, i.e. single and no kids? I assume it does.

Being single and making 80K a year is one thing, being married even and making 80K, that's probably high middle class too (although arguably still not upper class)

But having three kids, particularly depending on the age of the kids, on 80K a year is most definitely middle class.

[pitohui]

4. well nobody told them to have 3 kids

i'm more concerned about couples (childless) struggling on $40K a year, because you know what? you can choose not to have kids, but you don't really get to choose whether or not to eat

if the 80K couple had 1 or 2 kids like most people who try to be responsible and plan, i'd be more sympathetic

[qazplm]

7. ok

what does that have to do with whether or not the family with three kids and 80K are middle class or not?

And please, very few childless couples are "struggling" on 40K a year unless they have a special circumstance like medical issues or they've "chosen" as you call it to live in a pretty expensive area or have "chosen" to live beyond their means and now have a lot of bills or have "chosen" to take out loans for school and now owe a lot on them.

But let me get this straight, two kids is responsible, but three kids is not?

I had no idea responsibility had such a clear dividing line.

I however am confused by what sympathy has to do with defining middle class from rich which was the point of the original post and this thread.

[pitohui]

13. if we call rich people middle class real middle class people are fucked

for example, something i'm facing now, because we pretend that middle class people have thousands of dollars in disposable income a month, instead of $100 or $200 in disposable income a month, we have a property tax hike of several hundred percent

this causes "real" people who are "real" middle class to lose their homes

the family w. 80K a year wouldn't even notice it but nor would they be in this neighborhood to begin with

pretending 80k a year is middle class/achievable will kill not just families but entire neighborhoods and towns

the number of kids ia a side issue, but most educated middle class people have one kid or possibly two, and people who have 3 or more are either people who are rich enough that they don't have to run the numbers or so poor/uneducated that they don't grok how bad they're fucking themselves financially -- the middle class no longer has 3 or 4 or 5 kids -- open your eyes and look around -- it ain't that hard to observe the world instead of just reading propaganda, you can see if you want to see -- this is pretty much a matter of statistics that has been under discussion for many years so you could even get off your hind legs and look it up for yourself if you wanted to!

[qazplm]

16. 80K is not rich

you cannot take a year off, you cannot have a serious illness without becoming poor really darn quick if you have only 80K.

The only difference between a very poor person and one who makes 80K a year is about 12 months or a serious illness or accident.

I grew up eating sugar sandwiches.

I then moved on to ramen noodles as my sole source of nutrition for almost three years of law school.

I went a year with one pair of pants.

Please dont lecture me on what being poor is about...and let me tell you making 80K a year is absolutely achievable.

Two folks who go to school, get their undergraduate degree, and become teachers can come real close to 80K a year relatively quickly.

Two folks who finish high school and then learn a trade like mechanics, or computers can also come real close to 80K a year quicker than you think.

80K is not some unattainable only the well to do can reach goal.

The average number of kids a couple have is more than 2 and certainly it is not the case that the higher income levels have more than lower income levels, it is quite the reverse.

The fact that I by myself attained 80K from before never making more than 13K a year until I was 32 is not some miracle. It is not some exception to the rule and I am not some special case.

I certainly hope those on here who are working hard to improve themselves dont listen to you tell them that 80K a year for a couple of two is somehow not achievable barring some miracle.

And by the way, you dont think folks like me dont feel taxes and other things? That we dont "notice" it? That folks dont lose homes because they were laid off from their 80K a year jobs and now cant pay their mortgage?

Yeah, I'm sure those folks just "shake it off" with their massive tens of thousands of dollars in savings that last them whole months before they run out and cant find a job.

[Hannah Bell]

30. It may not be much in some places, but more than half of US households get less.

Look, anyone who works for a living is in danger of the breadline if they lose their job - 20K or 50K or 80K or 150K or 300K.

It doesn't mean we start mislabeling "upper middle" the "middle".

80K isn't rich, but it's upper middle in terms of the US as a whole.

[hfojvt]

37. It is an exception to the rule though

look at the friggin stats. Almost 75% of households are making less. About 50% of households are making less than HALF of $80,000. You think the rest of us are somehow not really trying to reach $80,000? Sheite. I have spent the last ten years trying to get a job that paid $25,000 and have been mostly unsuccessful. Yes I did have a full time janitor job for a time until I decided that with my psychotic boss and unstable economy and a banged up knee that I'd be better off as a part-time janitor. Still, it's not like a full time janitor's job making $25,000 a year is a dream job for a guy with a BA in math. And you pretend like everybody's making $40,000. Hint. That's not really starting pay for a teacher in most school districts either.

[roody]

24. Rich people get safe, early abortions, no problem.

Poor people, it's not so easy.

[roody]

3. Senators cannot imagine a family living on 40,000.

It is beyond their comprehension.

[pitohui]

5. exactly they don't care about real people

the double income couple w. 80K may think they're in the middle but they're definitely wealthier than way most of us

pretending they're in the middle just means those of us who really are struggling are treated like scum

"hey 80K is just average and middle and you didn't achieve even that much, so you are not really deserving of consideration"

that's just how people think

we need to be honest about what people REALLY earn and pretending that 80K is middle class doesn't help anybody

[elehhhhna]

6. she also said "we have no mandate" and "we have to find the middle"...

so I ain't so high on her no more.

[Demobrat]

9. 80,000 with two people working full time is far from wealthy.

if one person earned it and the other was available to run the household and do all the childcare they might be fairly well off. But two people working means two people commuting, two working wardrobes, child care expenses, etc. etc. etc.

[hfojvt]

38. it's not far from wealthy in this town

Secondly, it depends on your perspective. To the couple who both have jobs at Wal-mart making $9 an hour (if they are lucky) $80,000 a year is over twice what they make. It's a ways up there.

[Demobrat]

49. What's the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment there?

Where I live, San Francisco, it's $2,285.00. In the nine-county Bay Area, which is of course a much more fair comparison, it's $1,562.00. In the cheaper areas housing costs less, but there are few jobs so commuting costs are brutal, including the highest gas prices in the country, bridge tolls, etc. You won't starve with two $40,000 jobs and three kids, but it won't be easy either.

[RB TexLa]

10. Two people making $80,000 couldn't be considered any type of wealthy

That is ridiculous and not relatively ridiculous.

[pitohui]

11. ok i tell you what

give me the 80K and i'll report back to you next year about how "not any kind of wealthy" it is

c'mon, this is ridiculous, the median american family earns half that

it's wealthy and pretending it's just "average" means the median family who earns a realistic income that you and i could actually achieve is going to be priced out of pretty much everything

[malaise]

14. How is it wealthy?

The sad truth is that the median American family is barely middle class these days.
I have never understood class categories in the US.

[hfojvt]

40. barely middle class?

You know how much crap the average American buys/owns? Almost no American is so poor that they do not own a cell phone, or eat at McDonalds or Subway twice a week, and have cable TV. I thought it was this high income/high consumption lifesytle that is wrecking the ecosphere.

But I guess there's a point too, that the median income has declined relative to the income of the upper 5%.

[devilgrrl]

53. Ooooh 80k - that's so up there with the Vanderbilt's and Rockefeller's!!!!!!

No wonder so many rubes in this country vote Republican. :crazy:

[hfojvt]

39. relatively wealthy

Relative to the $14,000 a year that I make, $80,000 is definitely wealthy. Relative to the 28% of households making less than $25,000 a year, $80,000 is wealthy. It's over 3 times what they make. I think their/my perspective is at least as valid as yours or McCaskill's.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. Anything below $30,000 a year is not middle class for one anymore

I use to think that $25,000 was the break off point a few years back
but with healthcare, taxes, food and rental having inverse relation
to raises and buying power of the dollar that cut off has changed
in order to survive

So two people making $80,000 is not unreasonable but $60,000 for two
would be my choice for the medium choice of middle class.

[Captain Hilts]

18. The official poverty rate is a farce. And, yes, $80K is middle class. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. In 1990 the medium income was $30,000

I think that the last census was in 2004 and it sat around $45-56

The whole census measurement system has been corrupted since
Bush got elected.

Poverty and lower middle class cut off is ridiculous
it sits at around $10,000 per person.

[qazplm]

21. 10K year equals

192 bucks a week.

That's minimum wage working not quite full time.

A single person can probably live, barely, on that.

800 a week minus lets say 400 for rent, and 200 for food, leaving only 200 a month for utilities, and all other bills.

But through in another person, or kids, and you have a problem.

15K for a single person makes more sense to me, and 25K to 30K for families makes sense to me.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. 192 bucks a week. Before taxes and deductions leaves so little

The only way to survive on that a week, for take home is to
declare added deductions you don't have your w-4 form
then pay the penalty, that you will not have anyway because of the low income,
on your taxes that year



400 for rent, and 200 for other things just broke the bank.

Transportation to get to work in America can be cost prohibitive
in certain areas of the country, because of the necessity of owning
a car and the lack of public transportation.

[Hannah Bell]

31. Upper middle. US median household income = 50K.

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. Bullshit

that's crap and you know it

[Hannah Bell]

35. take it up with the census bureau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#cite_note-US_Census_Bureau_median_income_per_household_member-3

I'm not sure what your problem is with the number.

The main problem with their figures is they don't survey the very wealthy. But that's a small % of the population.

Most households in my neighborhood live on 20-30K, maybe you're more elite.

[hfojvt]

42. IRS data say about the same thing

In 2005, 60% of filers had income under $40,000. That's tax filers and not households but there were 134 million tax filers and about 118 million households. If 10% of the tax filers were teenagers making less than $10,000, you'd have 50% of households making less than $50,000.

[hfojvt]

41. I think I am doing alright at $14,000

I have $5,000 in my savings and have at least $2-3,000 of unnecessary expenses (or luxuries) that I buy every year. Not that I am middle class, but it is kinda puzzling when people making much more claim they cannot make it. Of course, my co-worker has student loan debt, medical issues, and rent to pay, so I can see where things would be tight, but at $25,000 he's not that far out of the bottom quintile either.

[JHB]

17. It seems to me the problem here is not whether 80K is middle class...

...but that the senator uses a family with combined income well above the median as her example, rather than one at or below it.

[hfojvt]

43. kinda what I tried to say - she picked the top of the middle class

rather than the middle. But I guess we have nine or ten DUers making $70,000+ who feel their middle-classness being threatened.

But this was one of my complaints with Hillary. She proposed policies that mainly benefitted families making $50,000 - $100,000. Leaving families below $50,000 (who are almost a majority) with only trickle-down.

The same thing might be said about Obama's stimulus package. I read that it includes a $1,000 tax cut for working families. Unless that tax credit is refundable, it will not benefit many families making under $40,000. Obama campaigned on a refundable tax credit, but Republicans are very, very likely to fight against making it refundable just like the heartless a$$holes did with the child tax credit. (When it went from $500 to $1000 as part of the 2003 Bush tax cuts, it did not benefit families with children making less than $30,000 because those families were already paying no taxes.) Are Democrats prepared to fight for refundability? Is McCaskill?

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. The problem is using "class" intended to be a proxy for income groups.

Middle income is inescapably, indisputably, inarguably those who make $48,000/year.

Politicians pander to "middle class" because everyone thinks they are middle class.

[tammywammy]

19. $80,000 for a couple and three kids, very much middle class. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

32. In terms of the *actual* distribution, it's upper middle. US median household income = 50K.

Highest state median = 68K.

[Telly Savalas]

23. So a couple consisting of an auto worker and a teacher is part of the wealthy elite?

The combined salary of such a household would be in the neighborhood of $80K, if not more.

[Hannah Bell]

34. No, but it's not "middle" in terms of household income, either.

US median (half make less) household income = 50K.

80K would be upper middle, in the top 50%. (Course, the census bureau stats don't include the *very* wealthy).

[MazeRat7]

25. For 2007, the census bureau says median income was $50,233.00 (according to Wiki)

In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.<3>The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102. The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.<4> In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000 ,<5> 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold<6> and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.<7> The aggregate income distribution is highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total earned income.<8>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

I've always considered myself to be "middle class" so I would like to know what the transition point is from "upper middle class" to "low wealth". Is it 100K, 250K, more ?
There are lot of peeps in my neighborhood making significantly more than 50k and barely making it. I dont know. :shrug:

Peace,
MZr7

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. I would like to know where the break comes from "middle class' to poverty?

Those lines are always never discussed.

250,000 is the max, everyone after that progressively........... TAX THOSE FUCKERS HARD.

Make it harder to hide their monies in foundations and grants.

[MazeRat7]

29. Dont know the number, and every case is different...

But if your having trouble keeping a roof over your head, keeping the lights on, and keeping food in the stomachs of those you watch over... your in poverty.

If you don't have health care for your tribe and cant afford it, your in poverty.

If you spend the vast majority of your life is worrying money for the basics of living and not ever enjoying life (like this holiday).... your in poverty.

I could not agree more. Where is the line ? Is one even needed ? Really ? Is this our fate to have a permanent underclass a kin to other 3rd world countries ?

I don't know, but it makes me ill.

Peace,
MZr7

[Hannah Bell]

48. no, you're not "in poverty" if you can't keep the lights on in your 1 million $ house.

on your $80k income. you're just not.

cause you have the option of selling it & downsizing.

something people who are actually "in poverty" don't have, unless downsizing means the street.

i know plenty of fairly well-off people who spend lots of time worrying about money, but they're not "in poverty".

[hfojvt]

44. it depends on your neighborhood, to an extent

but usually living in a neighborhood is a choice. $50,000 is not enough if you buy an expensive house and an expensive car or two. Obama made the cut-off $250,000 which I personally thought was too high. Semi-officially, you might consider it to be the break between the top 5% and the rest of us. In 2001, that was $150,499 for households.

[27inCali]

28. the buying power of the dollar changes dramatically

depending on what region you live in, sometimes even for what city.

$10 is the minimum wage in San Francisco, $7 in the Central Valley just an hrs drive East. If you assume these numbers to be relative to the buying power of the dollar in these areas, then that means there is almost a %30 difference in the buying power of a dollar in the same state. We're talking a geographical distance of about 50 miles.

$80,000 in the central valley would be on the edge of leaving middle class.

making $80 in Frisco you couldn't qualify to buy a house unless it was in the ghetto, even then it would be hard.

[leftofthedial]

36. Those inside the DC Beltway, especially congressional "democrats"

have the same distorted view of "middle" income (actually W-A-Y toward the wealthy end) that they have toward the "center" (actually W-A-Y to the right).

[CreekDog]

45. San Mateo County, California median household income: $80, 737

Median income for males: $51k
Median income for females: $40k
Per capita income $36k (yes, that's per person!)

If you think that the median here is wealthy, think again...2 bedroom apartments rent for $2000/month. 3 bedroom houses $2500+ per month on average, and that's excluding the wealthy cities.

Now, we have a lot of professionals here and it's not unusual for secretaries to make 50k/year, Registered Nurses typically earn more than 100k per year, Firefighters 100k+, Teachers start at perhaps 50k. I know a garbage man who works a ton of overtime and will finally make 100k this year. None of these folks can buy a house on those incomes by the way.

Yes, it's middle class and frankly, 80k for a household is living a lower standard of living here than the median family 40 years ago.

Think about that.

[Solon]

47. I don't think that is arguable, however, McCaskill is the senator from Missouri, not California...

we have a median income that's only a little over half the income you mentioned. 3 bedroom apartments can be found around here for 600-700 dollars, houses can be, depending on exact location, almost as cheap. I'm not saying its easy, with a median of about 45k indicates that a lot of people have a lot less, and in some locations, things do get really expensive, really quick. Factor in the lack of public transit in most locations in the state, and most people barely scrape by.

[Solon]

46. The crazy part, she's from Missouri, our median income is about 45 grand a year.

Around here, 80 grand a year is definitely above middle class as far as income is concerned.

[CreekDog]

51. Think again, in Missouri a teacher and a nurse both working --they aren't middle class?

I'm sure they are well above 80k, even in Missouri.

Middle class DOES NOT mean 50%/median only, obviously it includes people making more than the median.

It shouldn't need to be mentioned that Senators spend most of their time in the DC area and 80k there for a family is middle class, if not on the lower end of it.

What you should think about is how where "middle" is is basically poverty or poor in many places. Middle class isn't just a statistical definition but also a concept about people working that have what they need and are upwardly mobile, with children likely to attain higher levels of education and income than their parents.

Think CONCEPT of middle class.

[Mari333]

52. shoot, I make 10,000 a yr and live on it.

but I am alone and live in a poor state. maybe these people live in a bubble.