MemphisAg1 said:

---

I glanced at that article. The notion that a single person making $77k or a couple making $109k is "upper middle class" is absurdly ridiculous.

Multiply it by 4X and you might be getting close. Living a comfortable life is expensive. Getting there doesn't mean you're one step away from being "rich."

This smells more like a left-leaning author trying to paint "the rich" at a low level so they can justify higher taxes on the working class.

---

That is HIGHLY subjective.

Can it be? Absolutely, if your definition of living comfortable is constantly having new things, bigger houses, etc.

Bird93 said:

---

I agree with those who say our spending problem is far worse than any income issues. Virtually every American household has at least one 65+" flat screen, nearly $200/mo in TV subscription services, spends a car payment every month on "stuff" from Amazon, walks around with an $800+ mini computer in their pocket, buys vehicles on 72+ mo. notes, and eats out more than they cook at home.

Put 50% of that in a modest yield Roth IRA each month from the time you graduate high school, and you retire a millionaire. As a nation, we're incredibly financially illiterate.

---

Here's the thing though - life is made to live, not suffer through constantly simply because.

That flat screen TV is cheap as hell now, this isn't 1985 where a 65" TV cost 6 months of mortgage - you can go into Costco and get one for about $400 or whatever new. It is OK to actually have some creature comforts in life, because otherwise - F that. I lived like a damned hobo all through college, had enough of it. I don't live like a king, but I live well enough off to enjoy being at home and comfortable.

But we are finacially illterater as a nation, generally speaking. And that is not a bug in the system either, unfortunate as it is.

Folks are getting caught up in the definitions and how they feel about those definitions. The fact is, based on the data - median income, distribution, etc... - people are moving up the strata. If one thinks that is ultimately meaningless as far as buying power, fine, but it is happening. If it makes you feel better, you can name the strata poor, a little less poor, even less poor, treading water, average. More people are in the upper tiers now.

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

I wasted a lot of money in my younger years that would make me much closer to retirement now than I am.

---

here

---

I recently have an empty nest.

I spent an awful lot of money doing things with my kids that I could have saved for retirement. I also financially support them while they are in college because I can and not because I should. Take out those two things, and I am likely retired right now. I'm not, and likely will not be for another decade or so.

Zero regrets.

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. If you're poor in America it's because you make bad choices and/or are lazy. Period.

---

Disagree.
Being lazy is one of the many reasons. Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity. Now older folks here will say "go be a plumber! that is what I did!". Why should one trained to be a software engineer become a plumber when foreigners are invited into our country for the same jobs?? Americans willing to take less money are many times not eligible because foreigners can be treated like slaves.

America in 2026 isn't the America of 1976 which these old people fondly remember. Today, the only way to get rich is if you start your own business and it takes off... Or if you invest wisely in the stock market and don't lose your shirt. Working hard and doing well in a corporate job is so 1996.

---

Ahh yes, the old "lack of opportunity" argument that is just stupid.

Opportunity is literally surrounding every single person here, and in a whole lot of cases it favors a lot of people over others simply because we have tilted the deck on a social spectrum out of guilt, etc. There is no such thing as lack of opportunity, there is lack of taking advantage of the opportunities (lazy, stupid, etc.).

Your schtick of CEO's are the most evil people in the world and foreigners taking every single job and opportunity is a lazy and worn out take that lacks any semblance of actual critical thought.

---

You say this because you don't know what's going on and have decided to stick your head in the sand because the world you were taught about would then make sense.

Up to you.

The world has changed, even Dallas has changed, but you refuse to open your eyes thinking it is 1996 or worse, 1956.

The reality is that as technology increases labor efficiency, wages are going to continue to bifurcate.

Hard workers are generally going to work hard regardless of the tools available to them. Slackers are going to de enough not to get fired.

When you make the tools even more efficient, the hard workers will become even more valuable to the firm relative to the slackers. If that isn't reflected in salary, the hard workers will leave to somewhere else where it will be more appreciated.

AI is going to do the same thing. It's going to make it easier for slackers to waste more time on TexAgs each week and continue to keep their job, and it is going to make hard workers even more valuable to the firm relative to the slackers than before AI.

AI is not going to put us all out of jobs. It is going to make the most efficient workers even more valuable, give slackers even more time to waste, and open up the market to more entrepreneurship as overhead costs decrease.

This trend is inevitable given that there are limited hours in a week, technology is a lever that helps an individual become more productive, and people are just predisposed, whether by nature or nurture, to optimize their career or their leisure activities. It's not some kind of cultural scam. It's just the way that the universe works.

The counter-example of this sort of thing would be the Jetsons, where George only had a 4 hour work week at Spacely's Sprockets, because tech was so efficient. But, that is not reality. In the real world, if the market was that efficient, George would be on the government dole at home, and Spacely would work an extra 4 hours a week to do George's job, because Spacely doesn't want a 4 hour work week. Spacely is going to work 80 hours a week, because he doesn't want an easy life, he wants to rule the world.

Logos Stick said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Income is such a lazy statistic anyway. If you're young and making $250k/yr as a new doctor and paying off $700k of medical school debt at 7% interest and eating PBJ sandwiches to keep your expenses in line, you're nowhere near rich. Wealth is a more meaningful statistic... what you have actually saved and could rely on to live.

---

That degree is a valuable asset, no different than another person who has no student loan buying a multi-million dollar home, having to pay the mortgage and eating PBJ because of it. I guess you would consider the latter "rich" if instead they drove a 20 year old beater and lived in a wooden shack and had no assets/debt.

By your definition, that new doctor is no different than the person making $45k per year and having to spend it all on living expenses. They should both be categorized the same.

---

If the new doc's disposable income is essentially the same as the 45k worker, then yeah, they are basically the same.

That's the whole point with income as an indicator of well-being. It's very sloppy because it doesn't take into account all the other things that impact quality of life. It's a very lazy metric that the left seizes upon because it's easy to vilify. You're seeing them now pivot to wealth as the next area to attack.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

I wasted a lot of money in my younger years that would make me much closer to retirement now than I am.

---

here

---

You are doing fine. I got you beat by a mile in bad financial decisions, amigo.

---

I have been a good money manager. Much to the annoyance of my wife in the early days of our marriage. Reason is I knew I have no backups and no one will come and save me if I screw up.

Yes, I may have enjoyed life a bit less than I could have. But as I get older and towards retirement I walk in with no debt, not needing a job and can do what I want to do, kids education paid (no loan). That is HUGE, even if I have to say so myself. The mental peace has no price.

Today, I work just because I want to for some time (maybe 5 years).

Everyone should invest and learn to manage money.

schmellba99 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I glanced at that article. The notion that a single person making $77k or a couple making $109k is "upper middle class" is absurdly ridiculous.

Multiply it by 4X and you might be getting close. Living a comfortable life is expensive. Getting there doesn't mean you're one step away from being "rich."

This smells more like a left-leaning author trying to paint "the rich" at a low level so they can justify higher taxes on the working class.

---

That is HIGHLY subjective.

Can it be? Absolutely, if your definition of living comfortable is constantly having new things, bigger houses, etc.

---

Agree, it is absolutely subjective. "Expensive" and "comfortable" can mean different things to different people.

Using income as a indicator of well-being is pretty sloppy too if it doesn't take into account differences in taxes, local cost of living, and any debt you accrued to enable your earnings capability. Especially when you're talking about the difference between $80k and $150k of income. $150k in NY city vs $80k in rural Texas can be comparable.

Finally read this article and as suspected, it's mostly b.s. because it only considers salary. Salary is a red herring.

Median retirement nest eggs for 45-54 which is probably a lot of this board and a good check point for someone being able to retire due to peak earning potential:

- $115,000; source: Federal Reserve SCF Data
- $64,300; source: Vanguard customers
- $207,000; source Fidelity customers - broader client base than Vanguard; number is for Gen X
- $247,000; source Empower - more corporate participants skewing number higher but also includes everyone with no age breakdown


I've checked these numbers for several years now and as you can see...using salary as indicator for class strata is fake news. Most people will never be able to really retire.

Those first two numbers are one year of spend for most of us on here.

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. If you're poor in America it's because you make bad choices and/or are lazy. Period.

---

Disagree.
Being lazy is one of the many reasons. Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity. Now older folks here will say "go be a plumber! that is what I did!". Why should one trained to be a software engineer become a plumber when foreigners are invited into our country for the same jobs?? Americans willing to take less money are many times not eligible because foreigners can be treated like slaves.

America in 2026 isn't the America of 1976 which these old people fondly remember. Today, the only way to get rich is if you start your own business and it takes off... Or if you invest wisely in the stock market and don't lose your shirt. Working hard and doing well in a corporate job is so 1996.

---

Ahh yes, the old "lack of opportunity" argument that is just stupid.

Opportunity is literally surrounding every single person here, and in a whole lot of cases it favors a lot of people over others simply because we have tilted the deck on a social spectrum out of guilt, etc. There is no such thing as lack of opportunity, there is lack of taking advantage of the opportunities (lazy, stupid, etc.).

Your schtick of CEO's are the most evil people in the world and foreigners taking every single job and opportunity is a lazy and worn out take that lacks any semblance of actual critical thought.

---

You say this because you don't know what's going on and have decided to stick your head in the sand because the world you were taught about would then make sense.

Up to you.

The world has changed, even Dallas has changed, but you refuse to open your eyes thinking it is 1996 or worse, 1956.

---

You make many, many, many false assumptions about me.

YouBet said:

---

Finally read this article and as suspected, it's mostly b.s. because it only considers salary. Salary is a red herring.

Median retirement nest eggs for 45-54 which is probably a lot of this board and a good check point for someone being able to retire due to peak earning potential:

- $115,000; source: Federal Reserve SCF Data
- $64,300; source: Vanguard customers
- $207,000; source Fidelity customers - broader client base than Vanguard; number is for Gen X
- $247,000; source Empower - more corporate participants skewing number higher but also includes everyone with no age breakdown


I've checked these numbers for several years now and as you can see...using salary as indicator for class strata is fake news. Most people will never be able to really retire.

Those first two numbers are one year of spend for most of us on here.

---

Who said anything about retiring? The article doesn't make any assertions about people's ability to retire. That is mutually exclusive as to what is being discussed and doesn't negate anything stated in the article. A large reason people before now were able to retire was due to pensions, which no longer exist for the most part. The vast majority of people only have salary, including those who were able to retire previously because of pensions.

BusterAg said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

I wasted a lot of money in my younger years that would make me much closer to retirement now than I am.

---

here

---

I recently have an empty nest.

I spent an awful lot of money doing things with my kids that I could have saved for retirement. I also financially support them while they are in college because I can and not because I should. Take out those two things, and I am likely retired right now. I'm not, and likely will not be for another decade or so.

Zero regrets.

---

That is way different that being a single person and blowing money going out or buying new stuff that one doesn't need.

Spending time and money on your kids can be a very wise investment in many ways; some that are not even tangible.

Quote:

---

AI is going to do the same thing. It's going to make it easier for slackers to waste more time on TexAgs each week and continue to keep their job, and it is going to make hard workers even more valuable to the firm relative to the slackers than before AI.

---

For those of us with ADD, we can be hard workers and slackers on TA at the same time and AI will only make both better.

If 'middle class' meant a 100k income in the 1990 and they still call it a 100k income as the same middle class today, then we have an issue. Even if they go by official inflation numbers you still undersell how far money went before insurance went crazy and school systems actually taught kids.

I hear you, Schmellba. My only point is that a 22-yr old college grad or young tradesman (or whatever their profession) doesn't NEED that 65" TV. Yes, they are relatively cheap, but people can buy the 37" or 42" at half the cost and put $200 more into their retirement accounts. And making hundreds of those little decisions throughout their twenties will make a massive impact on their financial health and freedom.

I look back on all those decisions I made, and it makes me sick. I didn't need that 6th or 7th fishing rod, or that state of the art speaker system, or that new shiny driver. I certainly didn't need a log of Copenhagen every week. I enjoyed the hell out of all that stuff in the moment, but I'd give it all back in a heartbeat today in favor of making better decisions.

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

I wasted a lot of money in my younger years that would make me much closer to retirement now than I am.

---

here

---

I never wasted it. I enjoyed it. I had fun in my 20's and 30's. We aren't put on this earth to retire.

Quote:

---

Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity.

---

There is not a single system or lack of opportunity that keeps any American from being poor. Well off, rich, financially independent? Maybe. But any American with good decisions and work ethic can easily live and get by, pay their bills, have a bit of entertainment, and feed themselves. Can they live in a nice home, raise a family of four, take vacations, and save for a decent retirement?

No. But we are talking about just not being ****ing poor here.

Agreed, but we're not put on this earth to work longer than most of grandparents lived either. Balance is key.

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Finally read this article and as suspected, it's mostly b.s. because it only considers salary. Salary is a red herring.

Median retirement nest eggs for 45-54 which is probably a lot of this board and a good check point for someone being able to retire due to peak earning potential:

- $115,000; source: Federal Reserve SCF Data
- $64,300; source: Vanguard customers
- $207,000; source Fidelity customers - broader client base than Vanguard; number is for Gen X
- $247,000; source Empower - more corporate participants skewing number higher but also includes everyone with no age breakdown


I've checked these numbers for several years now and as you can see...using salary as indicator for class strata is fake news. Most people will never be able to really retire.

Those first two numbers are one year of spend for most of us on here.

---

Who said anything about retiring? The article doesn't make any assertions about people's ability to retire. That is mutually exclusive as to what is being discussed and doesn't negate anything stated in the article. A large reason people before now were able to retire was due to pensions, which no longer exist for the most part. The vast majority of people only have salary, including those who were able to retire previously because of pensions.

---

True, but I personally think your savings should apply to what strata you are in. Most of us can't work forever so when we have to hang it up it seems pointless to have been considered Upper Middle Class while working but then live in poverty when you can't work anymore because you didn't save anything.

The middle class is really just the working class.

Bird93 said:

---

I hear you, Schmellba. My only point is that a 22-yr old college grad or young tradesman (or whatever their profession) doesn't NEED that 65" TV. Yes, they are relatively cheap, but people can buy the 37" or 42" at half the cost and put $200 more into their retirement accounts. And making hundreds of those little decisions throughout their twenties will make a massive impact on their financial health and freedom.

I look back on all those decisions I made, and it makes me sick. I didn't need that 6th or 7th fishing rod, or that state of the art speaker system, or that new shiny driver. I certainly didn't need a log of Copenhagen every week. I enjoyed the hell out of all that stuff in the moment, but I'd give it all back in a heartbeat today in favor of making better decisions.

---

You can question the need for literally anything.

Hell, you don't really NEED a house either. You can live in a tent or a cave. You don't NEED a car, you can walk. It is to what degree down the rabbit hole you want to go to.

I don't NEED to spend the amount of time and money I do on a deer lease. But I will never regret it because I recognize that it is OK to actually live and enjoy life versus living like a monk only to brag about being able to retire 4 or 5 years earlier. I"m like everybody else - one day I'll retire. But, for me, enjoying my life up to retirement is a better path even if it means I work a few years longer. We all can go back and say "man, I wish I hadn't spent that money" - but in the end, we did. And while you didn't need that extra fishing rod, bet you had a good time using it.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity.

---

There is not a single system or lack of opportunity that keeps any American from being poor. Well off, rich, financially independent? Maybe. But any American with good decisions and work ethic can easily live and get by, pay their bills, have a bit of entertainment, and feed themselves. Can they live in a nice home, raise a family of four, take vacations, and save for a decent retirement?

No. But we are talking about just not being ****ing poor here.

---

I have to wonder, if you believe there are systemic and opportunistic deficiencies in our culture that prevent some Americans from being simply being financially independent, let alone well off, rich, or even wealthy, why do you not do anything to change it?

Not to overthink it, but if one isn't financially independent, how can you expect them to have any retirement, let alone a decent one?

It's obvious that not everyone can be rich. Only one person can be the richest person on Earth. But that is not what I'm talking about. When we have a system that prevents anybody from achieving their full potential, that is a flawed system and can be improved. That doesn't mean it must be improved, but only that there is room for improvement.

A society whose culture prevents it's citizens from achieving their full potential in order to insure power stays in the hands of those in power is inevitably going to fall to one that realizes full potential from all its citizens. To put it another way, a society that does not constantly improve the opportunities for advancement and the acceptance of all members in all of society is doomed.

The need to insure the poor are cared for and that everyone has equal opportunity and acceptance is not to improve the lives of the poor. It's to improve the lives of everyone.

infinity ag said:

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

I wasted a lot of money in my younger years that would make me much closer to retirement now than I am.

---

here

---

You are doing fine. I got you beat by a mile in bad financial decisions, amigo.

---

I have been a good money manager. Much to the annoyance of my wife in the early days of our marriage. Reason is I knew I have no backups and no one will come and save me if I screw up.

Yes, I may have enjoyed life a bit less than I could have. But as I get older and towards retirement I walk in with no debt, not needing a job and can do what I want to do, kids education paid (no loan). That is HUGE, even if I have to say so myself. The mental peace has no price.

Today, I work just because I want to for some time (maybe 5 years).

Everyone should invest and learn to manage money.

---

Some people see it differently, as long as you have no regrets, any outcome can be ok for a given person.

Quote:

---

Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. If you're poor in America it's because you make bad choices and/or are lazy. Period.

---

Disagree.
Being lazy is one of the many reasons. Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity. Now older folks here will say "go be a plumber! that is what I did!". Why should one trained to be a software engineer become a plumber when foreigners are invited into our country for the same jobs?? Americans willing to take less money are many times not eligible because foreigners can be treated like slaves.

America in 2026 isn't the America of 1976 which these old people fondly remember. Today, the only way to get rich is if you start your own business and it takes off... Or if you invest wisely in the stock market and don't lose your shirt. Working hard and doing well in a corporate job is so 1996.

---

And when you try to buck the trend and do something different to generate wealth, the boomers will call you crazy. Prime example, there's an interventional msk rad that I know one and a half years out of training, he works early AM ED shifts, then during the day has a cash pay procedural clinic and reads MSK MRIs from all over the country. He clears millions, but works an unorthodox way, and a lot of the older folks called his way of doing things "risky" and not "doing things for the greater good" as he refused to join their pyramid schemes, I mean private practices.

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. If you're poor in America it's because you make bad choices and/or are lazy. Period.

---

Disagree.
Being lazy is one of the many reasons. Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity. Now older folks here will say "go be a plumber! that is what I did!". Why should one trained to be a software engineer become a plumber when foreigners are invited into our country for the same jobs?? Americans willing to take less money are many times not eligible because foreigners can be treated like slaves.

America in 2026 isn't the America of 1976 which these old people fondly remember. Today, the only way to get rich is if you start your own business and it takes off... Or if you invest wisely in the stock market and don't lose your shirt. Working hard and doing well in a corporate job is so 1996.

---

Ahh yes, the old "lack of opportunity" argument that is just stupid.

Opportunity is literally surrounding every single person here, and in a whole lot of cases it favors a lot of people over others simply because we have tilted the deck on a social spectrum out of guilt, etc. There is no such thing as lack of opportunity, there is lack of taking advantage of the opportunities (lazy, stupid, etc.).

Your schtick of CEO's are the most evil people in the world and foreigners taking every single job and opportunity is a lazy and worn out take that lacks any semblance of actual critical thought.

---

Theres opportunity out there, but not in the traditional way. The typical american cant just waltz into a mega corp and be fine anymore. Now your average joe can become a CRNA or CAA if they work hard and youll make 300-500k

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Income is such a lazy statistic anyway. If you're young and making $250k/yr as a new doctor and paying off $700k of medical school debt at 7% interest and eating PBJ sandwiches to keep your expenses in line, you're nowhere near rich. Wealth is a more meaningful statistic... what you have actually saved and could rely on to live.

---

That degree is a valuable asset, no different than another person who has no student loan buying a multi-million dollar home, having to pay the mortgage and eating PBJ because of it. I guess you would consider the latter "rich" if instead they drove a 20 year old beater and lived in a wooden shack and had no assets/debt.

By your definition, that new doctor is no different than the person making $45k per year and having to spend it all on living expenses. They should both be categorized the same.

---

If the new doc's disposable income is essentially the same as the 45k worker, then yeah, they are basically the same.

That's the whole point with income as an indicator of well-being. It's very sloppy because it doesn't take into account all the other things that impact quality of life. It's a very lazy metric that the left seizes upon because it's easy to vilify. You're seeing them now pivot to wealth as the next area to attack.

---

Another thing people here continue to overlook in physicians careers here- you miss out on compounding wealthy and youre working a ton of hours all until your early 30s if you want to be a highly paid specialist. Some even continue to work long hours, and of course theres taxes.....

The book micro trends revisited in 2017 told us this.

I didnt read the entire thread, so forgive me if this was discussed.

Regardless of what metric is used to determine who/what is the middle class...we need a middle class. It's the engine that propelled success in this country. What's considered middle class might rise or fall...but it's necessary to remain a successful nation.

Making a positive argument for a shrinking middle class, either way, is silly. Working towards the 'haves' and 'have nots' isn't good. We need steps towards upper mobility and ingenuity. Going from poor to self-sufficient is a giant incentive and benefits our country in so many ways. If we widen that gap, we suffer.

Pizza said:

---

I don't see any mention of discretionary income.

If the gross increases, but expenses also increase, and the net remains relatively unchanged, does the earnings increase matter?

If the above scenario is true, could it paint a picture of the middle class working double time to keep its head above the water?

Haven't had time to read the full article yet

---

Finally read the article....and it stinks like a 3 day old bag of lawn trimmings.

It's lazy research; and compiles a bunch of general data which is useless for analysis.

If the ranges are accurate, then I'm upper middle class, and the 'upper middle class' label must be like a restaurant telling me their sandwiches are made with 'Artisanal Toast,' ....it's bread...that you stuck in a toaster.

Bird93 said:

---

I hear you, Schmellba. My only point is that a 22-yr old college grad or young tradesman (or whatever their profession) doesn't NEED that 65" TV. Yes, they are relatively cheap, but people can buy the 37" or 42" at half the cost and put $200 more into their retirement accounts. And making hundreds of those little decisions throughout their twenties will make a massive impact on their financial health and freedom.

I look back on all those decisions I made, and it makes me sick. I didn't need that 6th or 7th fishing rod, or that state of the art speaker system, or that new shiny driver. I certainly didn't need a log of Copenhagen every week. I enjoyed the hell out of all that stuff in the moment, but I'd give it all back in a heartbeat today in favor of making better decisions.

---

This whole discourse misses the point. Boomer oriented consumer electronic goods price points are at all time lows. It has never been cheaper to entertain yourself with technology. large tvs, golden age of television shows, free pandora, spotify, youtube, etc. Cheap distractions being cheap are the point.

And it completely misses the point about what is actually causing unaffordability crises.

-Huge swaths of no go zones across this country caused by either old minority groups (crime) or new minority groups (noise, exclusion, culture), pushing the price of go zones up.
-30 year+ march of hollowing out of the lower middle class industrial jobs across the country pushing people to cities and corporations.
-College education being the required minimum to participate in the white collar economy
-2 parent incomes repricing inelastic goods like land and food
-Deeply fraudulent and unequal handouts and patronage to any group that does not represent straight white christian men
-Money printer going brr
-False job postings for H-1Bs/unfair hiring practices basically going on for at least 20 years.

There are no meaningful $200 nickel and dimes to cut.

The strawman you've made up that has a shiny new driver and 7th fishing rod is long gone for most of the country. Physical abundance has been slowly priced out in favor of cheap digital abundance.


There will be civil war in this country in my childrens lifetime because of all of this.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity.

---

There is not a single system or lack of opportunity that keeps any American from being poor. Well off, rich, financially independent? Maybe. But any American with good decisions and work ethic can easily live and get by, pay their bills, have a bit of entertainment, and feed themselves. Can they live in a nice home, raise a family of four, take vacations, and save for a decent retirement?

No. But we are talking about just not being ****ing poor here.

---

I have to wonder, if you believe there are systemic and opportunistic deficiencies in our culture that prevent some Americans from being simply being financially independent, let alone well off, rich, or even wealthy, why do you not do anything to change it?

Not to overthink it, but if one isn't financially independent, how can you expect them to have any retirement, let alone a decent one?

It's obvious that not everyone can be rich. Only one person can be the richest person on Earth. But that is not what I'm talking about. When we have a system that prevents anybody from achieving their full potential, that is a flawed system and can be improved. That doesn't mean it must be improved, but only that there is room for improvement.

A society whose culture prevents it's citizens from achieving their full potential in order to insure power stays in the hands of those in power is inevitably going to fall to one that realizes full potential from all its citizens. To put it another way, a society that does not constantly improve the opportunities for advancement and the acceptance of all members in all of society is doomed.

The need to insure the poor are cared for and that everyone has equal opportunity and acceptance is not to improve the lives of the poor. It's to improve the lives of everyone.

---

I see through your avoidance of the typical language leftists use. You're implying the systemic racism of the white male conservative power structure. At least be honest.

This is a myth. Period. Anyone who believes in this myth holds them down/back will encounter exactly what they need to blame their lack of life improvement.

Minorities have all the power in our current society. Discrimination against whites is openly celebrated and encouraged. The mayor of NYC touted such an outright plan yesterday or the day before.

The delusion the left lives in is a prison of their own making.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Bird93 said:

---

I hear you, Schmellba. My only point is that a 22-yr old college grad or young tradesman (or whatever their profession) doesn't NEED that 65" TV. Yes, they are relatively cheap, but people can buy the 37" or 42" at half the cost and put $200 more into their retirement accounts. And making hundreds of those little decisions throughout their twenties will make a massive impact on their financial health and freedom.

I look back on all those decisions I made, and it makes me sick. I didn't need that 6th or 7th fishing rod, or that state of the art speaker system, or that new shiny driver. I certainly didn't need a log of Copenhagen every week. I enjoyed the hell out of all that stuff in the moment, but I'd give it all back in a heartbeat today in favor of making better decisions.

---

This whole discourse misses the point. Boomer oriented consumer electronic goods price points are at all time lows. It has never been cheaper to entertain yourself with technology. large tvs, golden age of television shows, free pandora, spotify, youtube, etc. Cheap distractions being cheap are the point.

And it completely misses the point about what is actually causing unaffordability crises.

-Huge swaths of no go zones across this country caused by either old minority groups (crime) or new minority groups (noise, exclusion, culture), pushing the price of go zones up.
-30 year+ march of hollowing out of the lower middle class industrial jobs across the country pushing people to cities and corporations.
-College education being the required minimum to participate in the white collar economy
-2 parent incomes repricing inelastic goods like land and food
-Deeply fraudulent and unequal handouts and patronage to any group that does not represent straight white christian men
-Money printer going brr
-False job postings for H-1Bs/unfair hiring practices basically going on for at least 20 years.

There are no meaningful $200 nickel and dimes to cut.

The strawman you've made up that has a shiny new driver and 7th fishing rod is long gone for most of the country. Physical abundance has been slowly priced out in favor of cheap digital abundance.


There will be civil war in this country in my childrens lifetime because of all of this.

---

Not a straw man, friend. I missed no point because I made no implication this had anything to do with the shrinking middle class (or any of the other things you mentioned above), and I offered no hypothesis at all on why that may be happening. I simply made a passing comment that Americans are largely financially illiterate.

And to insinuate that tightening the purse strings and reducing frivolous spending in favor of saving more wouldn't be helpful to a massive swath of people is flat wrong, if not irresponsible.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I glanced at that article. The notion that a single person making $77k or a couple making $109k is "upper middle class" is absurdly ridiculous.

Multiply it by 4X and you might be getting close. Living a comfortable life is expensive. Getting there doesn't mean you're one step away from being "rich."

This smells more like a left-leaning author trying to paint "the rich" at a low level so they can justify higher taxes on the working class.

---

User name does not check out.

You make $77,000 in Memphis, Tenn and you are literally a king. I'm talking about throwing away leftovers, shopping at Burlington Coat Factory and driving on Vogue Tyres.