Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chaos0xomega wrote:
... living in just such a household I can tell you we are anything but "upper class"....

Count your blessings. Your household earns almost six times as much as the national average (which is $42,000), and is above the 98th percentile in income. Whether you like it or not, whether you feel like it or not, you are solidly in the upper class.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So here is the question then:

Did spending those $60,000 (actually at the end it will most likely be $100,000) make you more than $1000 a month? Would you have been able to find a job making more than $1400 if you didn't borrow that money? Did you have to borrow that money or would you have been unable to get that degree without it (not would it have been harder, but would it have been impossible). Sounds like private school tuition levels there, bachelors I take it?

I think it's a fair question. Would going to a state-funded public school for the same degree been worse in the long run? Do you really think you couldn't have gotten the same engineering job with the same degree but from a public school?

You will find that the school you go to to get a degree makes a huge difference.

An Electrical Engineer who went to some no-name community college for his degree will be much less employable than an Electrical Engineer who went to a well known and expensive university that has a internationally known EE program. Same degree, different schools, the difference in their employability will reflect that.

But it also ignores multiple variables:

1) Is the added cost going to make a difference in pay? We saw that potentially making $10,000 a year more doesn't really make a difference if you are paying $12,000 a year more in student loans.
1.5) If you can go part time, or delay your degree by a few years in order to work and slave away at a lower paying job and save the money to go to school without student loan debts then you can eliminate that factor, and it should be the way to do it. I'll admit that I fell into the "let's do it fast and easy and just borrow" trap as well.
2) Are we assuming that only private big schools have the awesome programs? In Oklahoma we have lots of folks who want to go to the University of Oklahoma for a pharmacy degree, because OU is a big school and is a name brand. But actual pharmacists will tell you that if you are going to pharmacy school in Oklahoma you should go to Southwestern Oklahoma State University. SWOSU is a small regional college that costs less than half of OU but has a pharmacy program that is more known and more respected than the "big school".

 Grey Templar wrote:
What does Upper Class mean to you exactly?

I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class.

Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.

Your ability to manage money doesn't change your financial bracket. No one ever argued that The Donald wasn't filthy rich, even when he had filed for bankruptcy.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
What does Upper Class mean to you exactly?

I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class.

Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.

Your ability to manage money doesn't change your financial bracket. No one ever argued that The Donald wasn't filthy rich, even when he had filed for bankruptcy.

Yeah, of course it only works up to a point.

But still the point stands. You can have an income of 250k, manage your finances well, and most certaintly not be upper class.


If I, as a single man, was making 250k I might consider myself upper class. But if I had a wife and 2 kids, house payments, paying off my college loans and saving for my Kids to go to College, I would definitly NOT be Upper Class. And then we must consider where I am living and working.

Yes you would be upper class.

If you are making $250,000 a year, then you are making more a month than 18.63% of the population make in year. In two months you are making more than 43.08% of the population makes in a year. And in 3 months you are making more than 61.48% of the population make in a year.

You would be making over $20,000 a month. What kind of house payment, student loans, and car payments are you making that you don't consider that upper class?

Edit:

A sensible house payment is 25% of your monthly take home pay. Let's just assume you are taking home $12,500 (after taxes, health insurance insurance, cafeteria plan). So a "sensible" mortgage would be $3000 a month. So you are looking at a $550,000 thousand dollar home. There are very few places where that would not get you a home for a family of 4. That leaves you $9,500. Take two car payments off that (even though you should be able to buy used cars with cash at that point in your life) and you would have $8,700. Let's say you have twice the student loans that chaos has, so another $2000 down the drain. That leaves you with $6,700. Stick $500 a month for each kid into a college fund (that would give them $100,000 before interest to pay for college) and you have $5,700. $250 a week for groceries, that leaves you $4,700.

So you have $4,700 to pay your insurance, utilities, clothing, and then still have disposable income.

Living in a half million dollar home, with two car payments, paying off $120,000 in student loans and saving $1000 a month for your kids to go to college, and you still have more disposable income in a month than what many people bring home. But you want to insist that you wouldn't be upper class?

In my case our house is valued at 270k so, not sure where the idea of 500k came from. Youre also assuming that my parents have been making this much since day 1 ("save 500 a month per kid for 18 years") which is hardly, if ever, the case. I had no idea that im from the top 2% but, at the same time that statistic is meaningless, and assuming that the top 2% lives to the same standard as the top 1%, etc. is a fallacy. I assure you that the lifestyle of the average $250k/year household, at least in the metropolitan northeast is nit significantly different from those making half as much.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.

You try it on $43,000 and tell me how much better it went.

Lower class is the bottom third. Upper class is the upper third. Middle class is the middle third - THAT"S WHY IT"S CALLED THE MIDDLE CLASS.

The lower class is from $0 to $32K. The middle class is from $32K to $65K. Everything more than that is upper class. Sorry to disappoint you.

So just because someone has it fairly well off makes them Upper Class, which means they should get stuck into a higher Tax bracket because the Rich are Evil and need to Share with everyone else. There is a difference between comfortably well off, and being Mr Money Bags who doesn't have a care in the world.

Even though it will not generate more money because only 1$ of their income will get taxed at the 250k bracket. the rest is in the lower brackets.


The only real way to generate tax income is to make the lower brackets pay more. a 1% increase on everyone will bring in loads more money than a 50% increase on the Upper Class(however that is defined)

If we put all the money the Upper class has and all the money the middle and lower classes have into seperate piles, the Upper Class's pile would be pathetically tiny compared to the other pile. its only when you compare how much money everyone has per person that the Rich have more money.

So all this hoopla will really amount to nothing.

chaos0xomega wrote:
In my case our house is valued at 270k so, not sure where the idea of 500k came from.

It came from a "worst case scenario" that still includes a payment that is 25% of pay, which is what most people recommend.

Youre also assuming that my parents have been making this much since day 1 ("save 500 a month per kid for 18 years") which is hardly, if ever, the case.

If they started making that when kids were halfway through adult hood they would still end up with $50,000 a child in college funds. Or they could double the amount of money they put away each month ($1000 per kid) and still end up with $3,700 a month in disposable income.

I had no idea that im from the top 2% but, at the same time that statistic is meaningless, and assuming that the top 2% lives to the same standard as the top 1%, etc. is a fallacy.

And assuming that the top 2% are living a life style that is not that much more comfortable than the lower 98% is a fallacy as well.

I assure you that the lifestyle of the average $250k/year household, at least in the metropolitan northeast is nit significantly different from those making half as much.

So a person living in the metropolitan northeast making $250,000 a month has a similar lifestyle than a person making $125,000 a year who also lives in the metropolitan northeast?

The main reason people making $250,000 or more have to worry about money is that they put themselves into that position. I will guarantee that the wast majority of payments goes towards things that they borrowed their way into.

 Vulcan wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.

You try it on $43,000 and tell me how much better it went.

Lower class is the bottom third. Upper class is the upper third. Middle class is the middle third - THAT"S WHY IT"S CALLED THE MIDDLE CLASS.

The lower class is from $0 to $32K. The middle class is from $32K to $65K. Everything more than that is upper class. Sorry to disappoint you.

Contrary to popular, no... contrary to YOUR belief, class is determined by lifestyle more than income. Generally speaking, income and lifestyle go hand in hand, a 250k household income is associated with a lifestyle, at least around here, is really really middle class.


Also, there is no magic percentage that defines the divide by class. Generally speaking, it is seen as ideal for 50% of a nations population to fall into the middle class with 25% at each end, as you want the middle class to represent the majority of the nation. As I recall the middle class population of this nation is about 45% and dropping.

And assuming that the top 2% are living a life style that is not that much more comfortable than the lower 98% is a fallacy as well.

Were not assuming that, were assuming that the lifestyle of someone making 250k is the same as the middle 50% which it is. To further illustrate my point, when my parents bought this place, our household income was 100-110k per year. The house really hasnt changed in the past 10 years or so, nor has our lifestyle. Granted money isnt as tight now, and its less of a worry, but we're not "living the life" either.

chaos0xomega wrote:
To me middle class doesnt begin until 100k. Im currently making 40k per year as a recent college grad, and im just making ends meet with all kf my pwrsonal bills despite living with my parents. Doing the math, I wouldnt be able to get my own place (w a roommate) until 65k, my own place solo until 80k. Figure an extra 20 for buffer and thats middle for a SINGLE person, and id say lower for a family of four.

So... since only 16% of the population makes $100K or more, that means the other 84% of the people are lower class?

Methinks you misunderstand the term 'middle'. It's based upon averages, not needs. And your numbers are further proof of how badly the purchasing power of the middle class has been eroded the past three decades.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So just because someone has it fairly well off makes them Upper Class, which means they should get stuck into a higher Tax bracket because the Rich are Evil and need to Share with everyone else. There is a difference between comfortably well off, and being Mr Money Bags who doesn't have a care in the world.

Nobody said the rich are evil, and sharing is caring.

Even though it will not generate more money because only 1$ of their income will get taxed at the 250k bracket. the rest is in the lower brackets.

And you would be surprised how far up that money goes. The top 1% own almost 40% of the wealth.

The only real way to generate tax income is to make the lower brackets pay more.

Except its economic suicide. Because if you have $500 disposable income a month, and you bring home $30 more you will actually spend it. If you have $5000 disposable income and you bring home $300 more then you are most likely not going to spend that. (Using 30,000 vs 300,000 at 1% increase)

a 1% increase on everyone will bring in loads more money than a 50% increase on the Upper Class(however that is defined)

And nobody has suggested raising the tax bracket by 50%.

If we put all the money the Upper class has and all the money the middle and lower classes have into seperate piles, the Upper Class's pile would be pathetically tiny compared to the other pile. its only when you compare how much money everyone has per person that the Rich have more money.

You were saying?

Wealth =/= money

 Vulcan wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
To me middle class doesnt begin until 100k. Im currently making 40k per year as a recent college grad, and im just making ends meet with all kf my pwrsonal bills despite living with my parents. Doing the math, I wouldnt be able to get my own place (w a roommate) until 65k, my own place solo until 80k. Figure an extra 20 for buffer and thats middle for a SINGLE person, and id say lower for a family of four.

So... since only 16% of the population makes $100K or more, that means the other 84% of the people are lower class?

Methinks you misunderstand the term 'middle'. It's based upon averages, not needs. And your numbers are further proof of how badly the purchasing power of the middle class has been eroded the past three decades.

I have a tough time imagining a family w 100k income living a middle class lifestyle in the northeast (although tue main difference would be apartment style living vs.detached house)

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.

You try it on $43,000 and tell me how much better it went.

Lower class is the bottom third. Upper class is the upper third. Middle class is the middle third - THAT"S WHY IT"S CALLED THE MIDDLE CLASS.

The lower class is from $0 to $32K. The middle class is from $32K to $65K. Everything more than that is upper class. Sorry to disappoint you.

Contrary to popular, no... contrary to YOUR belief, class is determined by lifestyle more than income. Generally speaking, income and lifestyle go hand in hand, a 250k household income is associated with a lifestyle, at least around here, is really really middle class.

The "lifestyle" (aka: keeping up with the Jones') results into borrowing your way into being poor. That is how we end up with what we call people being "house poor" around here. They have the fancy house and cars and they are living the lifestyle, they can easily bring home $250,000 a year. But they are living paycheck to paycheck because they don't manage their money and spend more than they make. That doesn't make them middle class. It makes them dumb.

Also, there is no magic percentage that defines the divide by class. Generally speaking, it is seen as ideal for 50% of a nations population to fall into the middle class with 25% at each end, as you want the middle class to represent the majority of the nation. As I recall the middle class population of this nation is about 45% and dropping.

So using your definition, middle class begins at $25,000 and ends at $82,499. Because that is 25% through 75%.

d-usa wrote:

And assuming that the top 2% are living a life style that is not that much more comfortable than the lower 98% is a fallacy as well.

Were not assuming that, were assuming that the lifestyle of someone making 250k is the same as the middle 50% which it is.

So you are saying that a person making $250,000 is living the same lifestyle as someone making $47,500? Because that is what people smack dab in the middle are making.

$250,000 are sitting at the 98.50% percentile.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wealth =/= money

You must really be running out of arguments here...

Whoever said we're keeping up with the joneses? Lol thats the kind of assumption that makes me think you have no clue what youre talking about. We drive a 2009.Honda Civic and an 07 CRV, cheap, affordable, and hardly prestige automobiles. Our furniture has (with the exception of new couches we purchased at an 80% off closeout a couple months back) been here since we've moved in 10+ years ago. Only upgrades done to the house were to replace half the windows with newer more energy efficient ones, and to replace the oil tank (which we had to or face stiff legal fines). The air conditioning unit hasnt worked in 3 years and the water heater and associated tank is good enough for a 2 minute shower in the mornings.The last family vacation was to visit family friends outside of Raleigh, we drove there.

Indeed, we are most certainly keeping up with the joneses!

Have you ever considered, that my families lifestyle is the same as someone making say 60-80k is because those people ar racking up the debtand we aren't? I know more than a few people at the lower end, my best friends family pulls in about 30k, and wouldnt you know it they just took 2 weeks in ecuador? I've never been to another continent (carribean only), let alone been away for more than 7 days. We're living within our means and always have. I dont think we should pay more taxes because were responsible with our money and others arent.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I didnt say solid middle of middle class, only that it was solidly middle class, as in there should be no question as to what class its in. To me middle is 100k to round about 350k. Less is lower more is upper.

So you define middle class as being between the 86th and 97th percentile. Interesting.

Thats what we manage at 250k per year, and thats the "average" standard that the media portrays middle class life to be, and what the concept of the American Dream i and has been. Ergo, middle class.

Did it ever occur to you that the media depiction of middle class life might be... a wee bit optimistic?

 Vulcan wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I didnt say solid middle of middle class, only that it was solidly middle class, as in there should be no question as to what class its in. To me middle is 100k to round about 350k. Less is lower more is upper.

So you define middle class as being between the 86th and 97th percentile. Interesting.

Thats what we manage at 250k per year, and thats the "average" standard that the media portrays middle class life to be, and what the concept of the American Dream i and has been. Ergo, middle class.

Did it ever occur to you that the media depiction of middle class life might be... a wee bit optimistic?

In the northeast yes, hard to say elsewhere (keeping in mind the population in the northeast is heavily skewed towards the upper end). As for optimistic, I dont think so. A family of four with an average sized house/apartment and 1-2 cars seems like somethinf most people can achieve (aforementioned best friend family that went to ecuador certainly manages that, they have nicer/newer cars than we do at any rate). Are they living within their means though? Doubt it.

The middle class is a massive group and has a large difference between its top and bottom ends.

300k would be around the upper end and 40-50k would be the lower end, outside variables not withstanding.

is there a difference between upper middle and bottom middle, absolutly. They are still the same class.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Whoever said we're keeping up with the joneses? Lol thats the kind of assumption that makes me think you have no clue what youre talking about. We drive a 2009.Honda Civic and an 07 CRV, cheap, affordable, and hardly prestige automobiles. Our furniture has (with the exception of new couches we purchased at an 80% off closeout a couple months back) been here since we've moved in 10+ years ago. Only upgrades done to the house were to replace half the windows with newer more energy efficient ones, and to replace the oil tank (which we had to or face stiff legal fines). The air conditioning unit hasnt worked in 3 years and the water heater and associated tank is good enough for a 2 minute shower in the mornings.The last family vacation was to visit family friends outside of Raleigh, we drove there.

Indeed, we are most certainly keeping up with the joneses!

Have you ever considered, that my families lifestyle is the same as someone making say 60-80k is because those people ar racking up the debtand we aren't? I know more than a few people at the lower end, my best friends family pulls in about 30k, and wouldnt you know it they just took 2 weeks in ecuador? I've never been to another continent (carribean only), let alone been away for more than 7 days. We're living within our means and always have. I dont think we should pay more taxes because were responsible with our money and others arent.

I am talking about general things here. Feel free to give us a general monthly budget for you family if you want to, since you are using your situation as an example of making $250,000 a year and just living comfortable. Maybe if we see how your family spends money we can get a better idea what your definition of "middle class" and "living comfortably and not well off" is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The middle class is a massive group and has a large difference between its top and bottom ends.

300k would be around the upper end and 40-50k would be the lower end, outside variables not withstanding.

is there a difference between upper middle and bottom middle, absolutly. They are still the same class.

So if you make more than 98.5% of the population, you are still middle class?

chaos0xomega wrote:
I had no idea that im from the top 2% but, at the same time that statistic is meaningless,

Thinking statistics are meaninless may be part of your financial problem.

and assuming that the top 2% lives to the same standard as the top 1%, etc. is a fallacy. I assure you that the lifestyle of the average $250k/year household, at least in the metropolitan northeast is nit significantly different from those making half as much.

I'll give you that, the 98th percent does not live anywhere near as well as the 99th percent, and they don't even come close to the resources of the 99.5th percent. And you start getting truly astronmical

The 98th percentile makes $360,435. The 99th percentile jumps up to $506,553. A family at the 99.5th percentile makes $815,868; its neighbor at the 99.9th percentile makes more than double that, at $2,075,574 a year.

The trick is, NONE OF THESE ARE AVERAGE. The average is $43,000. These people make 8x, 12x, 20x, and 40x as much money as the average. That makes them upper class.

Upper class does not necessarily mean 'filthy rich', after all. That's why we use two different terms for them.

 d-usa wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Whoever said we're keeping up with the joneses? Lol thats the kind of assumption that makes me think you have no clue what youre talking about. We drive a 2009.Honda Civic and an 07 CRV, cheap, affordable, and hardly prestige automobiles. Our furniture has (with the exception of new couches we purchased at an 80% off closeout a couple months back) been here since we've moved in 10+ years ago. Only upgrades done to the house were to replace half the windows with newer more energy efficient ones, and to replace the oil tank (which we had to or face stiff legal fines). The air conditioning unit hasnt worked in 3 years and the water heater and associated tank is good enough for a 2 minute shower in the mornings.The last family vacation was to visit family friends outside of Raleigh, we drove there.

Indeed, we are most certainly keeping up with the joneses!

Have you ever considered, that my families lifestyle is the same as someone making say 60-80k is because those people ar racking up the debtand we aren't? I know more than a few people at the lower end, my best friends family pulls in about 30k, and wouldnt you know it they just took 2 weeks in ecuador? I've never been to another continent (carribean only), let alone been away for more than 7 days. We're living within our means and always have. I dont think we should pay more taxes because were responsible with our money and others arent.

I am talking about general things here. Feel free to give us a general monthly budget for you family if you want to, since you are using your situation as an example of making $250,000 a year and just living comfortable. Maybe if we see how your family spends money we can get a better idea what your definition of "middle class" and "living comfortably and not well off" is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The middle class is a massive group and has a large difference between its top and bottom ends.

300k would be around the upper end and 40-50k would be the lower end, outside variables not withstanding.

is there a difference between upper middle and bottom middle, absolutly. They are still the same class.

So if you make more than 98.5% of the population, you are still middle class?

Budget i cannot give but I can give an example of the average week:

Both parents work 5 days 9-6, dad commutes mom works in town, both parents pack their own lunch. Mom cooks dinner every day, chinese takeout once a week (occassionally: pizza). Brother is a boy scout and takes karate lessons, mom does zoomba at the Y. Weekends its chores, occassionally a trip to the shootin range or a hike. Buy our groceries at costco/shopright, clothes at tj maxx/marshalls/burlington coat factory, w/ the occassional designer item as a gift or if its at a steep discount. Go out to dinner at a sitdown type place once a month average, usual cost of a meal roughly 15 per person. If were looking at anything more than that then its usually a very special occassion.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The only real way to generate tax income is to make the lower brackets pay more. a 1% increase on everyone will bring in loads more money than a 50% increase on the Upper Class(however that is defined)

If we put all the money the Upper class has and all the money the middle and lower classes have into seperate piles, the Upper Class's pile would be pathetically tiny compared to the other pile. its only when you compare how much money everyone has per person that the Rich have more money.

So all this hoopla will really amount to nothing.

Hunh.

According to this story - http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html - the bottom 20% has 0.1% of the wealth. The next 20% has another 0.2% of the wealth - or a combined 0.3% of the wealth. Add in the third 20%, and the running total for the bottom 60% is approximately 4%. Bring in the next 20%, and the bottom 80% has 15% of the wealth. Leaving 85% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the people.

Yeah, 85% of everything is pathetically tiny, sure.

This story - http://currydemocrats.org/american_pie.html - focuses on owned wealth rather than income, but tells a similar story. The bottom 80% has just 7% of the financial wealth - stocks, bonds, property, and savings.

Again, that 93% of financial wealth posessed by the 20% is pathetically tiny against the combined 7% of financial wealth posessed by the rest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Generally speaking, it is seen as ideal for 50% of a nations population to fall into the middle class with 25% at each end, as you want the middle class to represent the majority of the nation. As I recall the middle class population of this nation is about 45% and dropping.

Okay, let's use your number then. The lower class is the bottom 25% - that covers $0 to roughly $25K. The middle class is from 25% to 75% - that's from $25K to $80K.

Your family's $250K is STILL three times the upper limit of the middle class by your own definition.

You will notice they are using Wealth, which is deliberatly done to make the chart look like they want it to look. Anyone who has taken an Economics class knows the difference between income and Wealth.


Now wealth is what we should strive for, not income. Income =/= Wealth.

The biggest reason the lower and middle class doesn't have as much wealth is because they are forced to spend a larger portion of their income on basic non-durable goods that meet their survival needs.

If we really want to improve quality of life, we would make the basic necessities of life cheaper. If the family is spending less of their money on food, clothing, and shelter, they can put the excess money towards improving their quality of life.

Because the Rich have more disposable income, they end up with more of the Wealth.

However, Wealth =/= Money. There is a correlation but they are not the same thing.

You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.

As a half of a husband/wife that are solidly in the middle class (about 45,000 a year, and she's a high school teacher with a Masters Degree) I'm seriously not sure what lengths I would be willing to go to if it would gain me a lifestyle that "rough".

I'm pretty sure if we were making 250K a year, we could feed a family of four, and several neighbors, too. Of course, the kids would put themselves through college (like my wife did), and we would live in a house worth about 100-150 grand. Because that's called saving money.

 d-usa wrote:

And you would be surprised how far up that money goes. The top 1% own almost 40% of the wealth.

To be fair, wealth and income are not the same thing, particularly given that capital gains are not subject to income tax. Though I suspect the notion that a 1% increase across all income tax brackets would far outstrip a 50% increase on the top 2% of households is quite mistaken.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.

I'm seriously not sure what lengths I would be willing to go to if it would gain me a lifestyle that "good".

His point was that its not all roses and sunshine. Its work and really isn't as nice it looks from the outside.

He isn't loads better off then people with an income half of what they have. They may be only 10% better off.


its diminishing marginal returns in action.

A person making 100,000 a year is better off than someone making 50,000 a year.

A person making 200,000 a year is better off than someone making 100,000 a year.

however, the difference in how "well off" the people are isn't linear.


Lets say the person making 100,000 is twice as well off as the person making 50,000. However, this does not mean the person making 200,000 is twice as well off as the guy making 100,000 and he certaintly isn't 4 times as well off as the guy making only 50,000.

What the situation really is is that the guy making 200,000 is only around 50% better off then the person making 100,000. Each additional dollar benifits you less than the dollar before it.

The actual amount for being better off isn't close to what I said either. In actuality the guy that makes 100,000 is probably less than 50% better off then the guy making 50,000.


In my Economic Analysis class my teacher used a study that had been done on Happieness and they found that it, as it related to how much money you made, really peaked out at around 500,000. And most of the increase was in the first 200,000.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Were not assuming that, were assuming that the lifestyle of someone making 250k is the same as the middle 50% which it is.

If all other things are held equal, the person or household earning 250k per anum does not live a lifestyle comparable to a person or family earning a quarter, or even half that. A family of 4 earning 50l per anum does not live like a family 4 earning 250k per anum given similar levels of debt and location. Similarly, a single man earning 50k per anum does not live like a single man earning 250k per anum, again given similar levels of debt and location.

Claiming otherwise is, honestly, ridiculous.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You will notice they are using Wealth, which is deliberatly done to make the chart look like they want it to look. Anyone who has taken an Economics class knows the difference between income and Wealth.


Now wealth is what we should strive for, not income. Income =/= Wealth.

Please, elaborate on this. References would be nice. Help me understand.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You will notice they are using Wealth, which is deliberatly done to make the chart look like they want it to look.

The income distribution is also heavily skewed, though not to the same degree. For example, in 2004 (I'm too lazy to look for more recent data) the top 5% earned 33% of all income for that year.