LightningDawg
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 125
+100
Playing devils advocate. Right out of college and over 30 years ago, I took a job in orthopedic research as a Laboratory Specialist/Researcher. It paid a little of $9,000 if memory serves me correctly. I was also licensed to teach. The reason I took the research position over a teaching position is it paid $1,500 more than teaching....plus I didn't want to be a teacher. I just looked up the average salary for the same research position and today it pays an average of $32,000. In 30 years due to CPI, the salary went up 3.6 times.
So...if you take the $250,000 and divide it by 3.6 you get a salary for what was $69,444 back in 1977. Would we consider someone making $69,777 back in 1977 rich?
I get that the $250,000 is AGI...so let's bump that $69,777 to say $85,000.
Was that person rich?
I think what has gotten lost in the political mantra is what CPI has done to salaries over the years.
I also get that the government tells us that someone with a AGI of $250,000 is in the top 5%...but I question that....as I know a LOT of people that surround me in my small city of 9,000 that make that. So...next question is do we really believe that at that level...it is only the top 5%?
Some of the federal and state tax bills quoted in articles like this astound me. I WISH I only paid $29,000 in federal taxes. Believe me, I pay way more...but then I don't have a huge mortgage deduction. Anyone making that already is getting hit with the extra AMT tax, loosing most tax credits and deductions...so....my take is that if they are paying less in tax...they are donating a fair portion to charities, church whether directly or thru charitable remainder trusts.
Simply put...I remained baffled...that the designated $250,000 is considered RICH. No doubt ...well off...and "trying to get there"...but it takes many years....even at this salary level to "get there".
The other 8,550 are living on less.
The claim is that people making $250k "can barely get by". That's nonsense since the great majority of Americans make it on just a fraction of that amout. The word "rich" is like "tall". A 6'6" NBA player wouldn't consider himself "tall".
If the 5% is right, then 450 people in your town of 9,000 would be in $250k families. That would be "a lot" of people, more than you can personally hang out with, but it would be consistent with the statistic.
The other 8,550 are living on less.
I still don't get it. My work shirts go in the washing machine and then I iron them. (Well, just occasionally DW irons them. ) It would not occur to me to have someone else do my daily clothes washing for me, unless I was, er, rich...$1200/yr for dry cleaning? Let's see...
That's $100/month or $25/week. A place near me advertises the price of $2.5 per item. That's 10 items/week, which is 5 items per week for each of the couple, or 1 item per workday. Bingo!
That was not my take away from the article. While the article was showing they "were getting by", or "barely making it"...my take away was...that in order to support a family of 4 in some locations and with what some might feel are necessities..whether it is due to both spouses working or clothes needed for jobs or educations because the public school systems (s..k)....plus all the TAX hits......this is what it took. And the life style is what some would have considered "on the high side of middle class" or "upper middle" ....30 years ago and ....even today.
On another thread...the theme is 7 million is now needed to have what equates to the 1 million 30 years ago. Why are salaries any different.?
My 9k 30 years ago should equate to $56K today but it doesn't. Salaries in general have not kept up with the cost of living....if you subscribe to the thought that you now need the 7 million.
And I suppose my major point...is the lack of conversation by our government or articles such as this... on what CPI has done to salaries over 30 years...and what that really means...and where those households truly are in the social strata.
And the people in my town making that are not considered rich. They are upper middle class, doing well, paying their bills, educating their children and trying to be independent in retirement.
I can't help what other people have been willing to accept in their lives. Nor am I responsible for the decisions they made. But all of this talk by our government is ...going to make us all responsible. There goes MY American Dream.....
The "other people are living on less" statement ...ummm....what is that about? All one can do in life...is take responsiblity for ones self.
This post seems to say that the only reason people make less is "the decisions they made". If that's the case, then it's equally true that the only reason the $250k couple isn't earning $1 million is the decisions they made. Instead of explaining how they can't get by on $250k, they should make some different decisions and start making $1 million.
I know we can not control everything and some are dealt really unlucky cards . Not talking about those situations. Just saying that at a basic level...the cumlative effect of all of our personal decisions...have a bearing on where we end up. No?
You have a science background, I'd expect you to favor objective stuff. We can say with confidence that the great majority of Americans live on much less than $250k per year. People who think they are "just scraping by" on that amount certainly have an unusual definition of "necessities".
It just gets a little tiring listening to people who were born on 3rd base talk about how great they are for getting to home, and how worthless all those lazy poor people are.
There are an awful lot of people from the lucky sperm club that talk endlessly about how they got there on their own.
Yes, people's decisions have a large impact on where they end up.
It just gets a little tiring listening to people who were born on 3rd base talk about how great they are for getting to home, and how worthless all those lazy poor people are.
There are an awful lot of people from the lucky sperm club that talk endlessly about how they got there on their own.
My wife and I make about double the median income in the US. We've worked for what we have, but it has come a whole lot easier for us than for a lot of people I know.
Our tax burden seems very modest to me. We must be the only people in the country that aren't over-taxed
Well, if the real concern is changes over time, then it pays to get some data on that. AFAIK, this guy has the best data series Emmanuel Saez's Home Page if you download the red "Updated to 2008" excel worksheet and do some looking around (unhiding the "Thresholds" tab), you'll find that in 1977 the nominal minimums for the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of income were $26,934, $34,444, and $64,024. Those numbers, adjusted for the CPI, would be $87,765, $112,237, and $208,627 in 2008. But, the incomes actually required to get into those percentiles in 2008 were
$109,062, $152,726, and $368,238.
This says that upper income people gained against the CPI in those 31 years, and the further up the ladder the greater the percentage gain.
I think stagnant wages in the US are a real problem, but the people who didn't make progress were the median workers, the top earners made progress, and the very top is gained a lot.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But because I do have the science/researcher background as well as an Info Systems background...I like data that makes sense. Data without making sense "means little". It has to pass the reasonability test...right?
I get that there is all sorts of data out there to say those making $250K are in the top 5%. Guess who is providing the data? The government.
When the data...contradicts...my observations of the real world...then in my mind it is questionable. The real world says to me...that those at the $250k range...are doing extremely well....for that one year....but it doesn't make them "Rich".
Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But because I do have the science/researcher background as well as an Info Systems background...I like data that makes sense. Data without making sense "means little". It has to pass the reasonability test...right?
I get that there is all sorts of data out there to say those making $250K are in the top 5%. Guess who is providing the data? The government.
When the data...contradicts...my observations of the real world...then in my mind it is questionable. The real world says to me...that those at the $250k range...are doing extremely well....for that one year....but it doesn't make them "Rich".
For me...it still leaves out a critical element..and that is net worth.
Now...say to me...X is making $250K a year and they have a net worth of 1 to several million...and I would agree that is rich.
So...we come back to the income versus net worth argument. I suppose I'd feel better about what our government is doing if they would include a net worth element in the calculation. Why? Because...it prevents those that are striving to get there ....to get there. And that ..cuts into the American Dream.
All in my humble opinion.
uummm... but that is not what I said. I said "about all one can do in life is take personal responsiblity" meaning...for oneself.
And I don't think...the article stated that the couple making $250K was "not getting by". It just showed how it was spent.
But given your ...analogy...it probably is or would be the personal decisions of those making $250K not to make the $1million. Perhaps they are not willing to spend all their time traveling, or go get that masters or PhD, or borrow that seed money to start their own company...or...etc. Are these not personal decisions
Likewise is it not a personal decision if one:
1. Decides to drop out of high school
2. Not to go to college
3. Had 3 children before age 20
4. Decided to do drugs or alcohol
5. Become a criminal
I know we can not control everything and some are dealt really unlucky cards
. Not talking about those situations. Just saying that at a basic level...the cumlative effect of all of our personal decisions...have a bearing on where we end up. No?
Beavis, she said IQ! Huh!IMO, "Going to college" may be a good or bad decision. It's a good idea for most people in the top quintile of IQ, a bad idea for most people in the bottom three quintiles, and iffy for people in the second.
In terms of data quality, I'll go with the gov't before I'll trust anecdotes from one person. .
I suspect that your observations reflect a very selective portion of the real world.
If you make $250k/year or more, you very likely live in a neighborhood/town/state/part of the country that has a much higher income (and living cost) than the average.
Those of us in fly-over country are generally stunned by the dollar figures earned and spent on the high-cost coastal areas.
Certainly we have choices within the hand we're dealt, but we're not all dealt the same hand. I don't think the primary difference between the median and the top 5% is "decisions".
Likewise is it not a personal decision if one:
1. Decides to drop out of high school
2. Not to go to college
3. Had 3 children before age 20
4. Decided to do drugs or alcohol
5. Become a criminal
I know we can not control everything and some are dealt really unlucky cards
. Not talking about those situations. Just saying that at a basic level...the cumlative effect of all of our personal decisions...have a bearing on where we end up. No?
IMO, "Going to college" may be a good or bad decision. It's a good idea for most people in the top quintile of IQ, a bad idea for most people in the bottom three quintiles, and iffy for people in the second.
Certainly we have choices within the hand we're dealt, but we're not all dealt the same hand. I don't think the primary difference between the median and the top 5% is "decisions".
You are assuming that these people actually evaluate the decisions they make and consciously decide on a course of action. The reality is far far different. Most of these people are acting the way human beings have acted forever - they adapt to the environment and home in which they live. The live the expectations set for them. If you raise a child to think that killing and eating babies is ok, they too will kill and eat babies and see no wrong in that.
Please don't tell that to all the elementary school age children who are told...."the choices you make will have a bearing on what you become"..or something to that affect.
It may ...or may not be the primary reason. Don't think there has been a study on that...and even if there had been..it probably would not be statistically relevant. Too...subjective. BUT....certainly some uncalculated percentage towards this possibility....is...well....a possibility...is it not?
Certainly we have choices within the hand we're dealt,
but we're not all dealt the same hand. I don't think the primary difference between the median and the top 5% is "decisions".