So those under this figure are ‘Walking Dead’?
We already cracked. We’re all in the biggest ever bubble pop, we just don’t know it yet.
I live on benefits, about $1,200 a month, and have the good fortune to only be obligated to pay for internet, fuel, some services like VPN+Email+Anti-virus, and food. For most of the past decade I was able to squirrel away about $200 to $300 a month into an ABLE account, but the last few years that has become increasingly difficult. In fact, I don’t think that I saved any money at all for this year.
My game ‘plan’ was to just let my ABLE collect interest and use that for my annual computer after a new AMD socket has been released, buying the best endgame gear for the prior standard. I spend most of my time on my PC, so I figure a expensive computer would be my ‘big ticket’ item every decade. Never once I have had a vacation to see new things or do stuff beyond the house, because it felt incredibly wasteful for my situation. I would have to cut more of my food budget if I want to save up for the next PC in 2030. This assumes that things like buying new tires doesn’t come up, or medical issues.
I don’t feel good about the future. My circle of possibilities shrinks every year.
Six figure income? I don’t get that, maybe they have kids or something. They’re lucky, I’d dream to have a job that even paid 60k.
Here’s the thing about making more money, you tend to spend more money. If someone making $120k lived like they were only making $60k they wouldn’t be in “survival mode”.
This is more or less it.
When I made 45k and rented a room I had a lot of expendable income. I could put 6% in a 401k, pay insurance, and still go out and party on weekends.
Making 125 with a mortgage and 2 kids feels kinda rough some months. I wouldn’t call it a struggle. I have a lot of comforts and security. I just don’t have any expendable income.
I think what’s different for me now is, in the past, I could get by crashing on someone’s couch if things got bad. I’m low maintenance. Today, I HAVE to have that mortgage payment. If I don’t cover that Pre-K payment I’ve failed my family. It’s not a struggle per se, but it’s a different kind of stress.
Making $120k but living like they made $60k would mean they are living in survival mode.
Don’t forget that while middle class people have some tiny wiggle room before financial collapse, they are still very vulnerable compared to the millionaire, billionaire, and now trillionaire classes.
I spent years living with off making about 400€ monthly as a student with a part time job (most of it going to food and housing with family), and now that I have 800€ monthly I find myself immediately overextending with plans. New furniture, console, TV, actual PC instead of a budget laptop. If I didn’t live in a big city I’d consider saving up for a car.
It’s easy to forget almost anything besides a roof, homemade food and healthcare is a luxury. (Or even the last one, if you want good healthcare, or live in America)
No, they’re not.
That’s correct. Everyone here making six figures will have some form of asset they could cash in if the chips came down. I sometimes feel underwater, but if I made painful cuts, I could survive. Real Americans are living day to day knowing if things get bad, they might have to sell more blood.
This was some years ago - even before the first Trump presidency - I read a perfectly reasonable sounding piece from someone about how he’s struggling as a dual-income family making $400,000 a year. There’s the mortgage for the house and the summer home and the vacation condo and the kids’ tuitions at prestigious schools and family vacations and the 401ks and the kids’ college tuition funds and how there was NOTHING LEFT after the bare necessities!
Yeah, I live more in the realm of having emptied my 401k twice after leaving different jobs because the only other option was homelessness. Have I made bad decisions in life, never intentionally… but owning a home is being taken off the possibilities for me. At 36 it’ll be years before I ever have 1000s in the bank, let alone the 20% of 400,000 or whatever a small house will cost in future. Shit they turned me down to get a car loan and buy a used Kia which left me with a broken down vehicle and losing my job because I couldn’t transit 104 miles a day to the decent paying job I landed. So now I’m getting paid 1/3 to half of it on a job I found I can work from home. I’ll make rent and food, but retirement is likely out of the picture.
“Survival mode” was basically my family’s first few years as new immigrants before we managed to move on from that stage. I don’t think we even had “6-figures”, far from it.
Now the entirety of America get to experience what is it like to be an immigrant lol.
Still remember in Brooklyn, I was in elementary school. I was in an afterschool program than ran until 6PM, I was just waiting, as the clock ticking… minute and minute goes by, other kids get picked up from school. Until there are only a few kids left, then someone enters the cafeteria where us kids were waiting, I thought is that mom?, but it was someone elses parent… this goes on and on… until I was the only one left. But my mom still hasn’t come. 6:30PM. I was so afraid CPS was gonna get involved. Authorities were terrifying for me as a kid. I mean, who knows, immigration status could’ve been at risk. This scene repeats itself very often.
Mom had work until very late, so get picked up very late. Not always the last one, but always very late, the last few, but then there are days where I get very ublocky and end up being the last one to get picked up.
I get so anxious and scared and felt so alone, until my mother shows up.
You can guess why I eventually end up with depression.
I’m not going to give them the benefit of ‘survival mode.’ If you’re breaking even in a million dollar home you are not the same as someone breaking even in a studio.
My siblings and I have slept in a car. We have slept for weeks in a hotel room. We have been to shelters and we have lived with grandparents while mom got on her feet. We had Christmas in the back seat of a 90s Lunima. While I don’t wish it on anyone, I won’t give someone that has to reduce spending an inch in terms of hardship. Even in this economy 6 figures is manageable if you live frugally.
Hey, it sounds like we’re twinsies! Right down to having ‘Christmas’ (if you could call it that, haha!) in the back seat of a '90s Lumina! That’s a wild coincidence. I understand where you’re coming from.
I genuinely hope things are better and more stable for you all nowadays. I’m sorry for what you’ve been through. Internet hugs to you, if you want them. 🫂
If they’re on survival mode, I’m on Hardcore Ironman mode.
My sister, who earns several times the average income of the city she lives in:
- constantly complains about taxes. She says she wants to pay, believe it or not, zero taxes, because “what is she getting in return for that money anyway? Nothing”
- complains about how she “has to” work “four jobs” (she means 4 clients) then she casually drops something like “I saved up enough to buy two apartments. I want to buy and rent and quit my job”. She sees herself as someone who HAS TO work multiple jobs for rent and food
- she constantly complains about how poor people “pay less taxes” than her and absolutely hates anyone who works a low-income job as if they’re “dirty” or something. I assume if “no taxes” is her wet dream, then “everyone pays the exact same amount regardless of their income” is something she’d be ok with
- this is happening in the EU, with free healthcare and all that, so she’s getting plenty out of the taxes she pays (or would, if she didn’t insist on using overpriced private clinics instead and hell knows what other “rich people” alternatives)
She’s not poor. She’s practically a one percenter. She’s just upset it’s a lot of effort saving up to buy property to turn her favorite hobby of “fucking the poor” into a job by becoming a “professional landlord”. I don’t need Trump. I have Trump at home.
Most rich people I’ve met are disconnected assholes… I’m sure some are cool, and where I’m at they tend to vote liberal (but not progressive), but goddamn I have not a thing to share or discuss with them. Bless’em and may I never wait on them or paint their house or be their nurse or anything like that, cause I’m not putting up with their attitude.
Sorry if I sound like a dick. Just blowing off steam.
She says she wants to pay, believe it or not, zero taxes, because “what is she getting in return for that money anyway? Nothing”
I like to tell libertarians that express such to move to a developing country for two years.
Your sister is a piece of shit.
Thank you
And a dicknosed douche-canoe.
I appreciate this
I appreciate your appreciation
I appreciate how appreciative you both are
I appreciate your appreciation of our appreciation
That makes me feel so appreciated. I’m glad that my appreciation of your appreciation was appreciated.
What have I ever gotten from paying my taxes?
Except the roads of course, that goes without saying
And okay, okay, police keeps order and makes it we have a lawful nation
And sure, sure, firemen will always be there to protect my house from burning down but that’s nothing!
And I had free education, but come on, isn’t that what you’d expect at the very least?
Nothing!
And okay, they did get me free healthcare too, fine, but that’s nothing
Investments to promote local businesses? Fine…
So aside from the roads, police, firemen, education, healthcare, investments, what have taxes ever done for me?
Nothing!
People like that feel like a Monty Python sketch
Well, if you’re living in the USA, you have the largest military budget on the planet and now your paying for the Orange Fuck Nut to play golf.
Yes, What have the Romans ever done for us?
…the aqueduct!
You will never sound like a dick mouthing off about rich people, because we know they all deserve it.
4 clients
who are these clients? what’s her job?
She works in IT. Her main tool is Salesforce. Some of the clients she’s mentioned are universally known. Volkswagen and IKEA are two I remember.
I don’t know what she does exactly. But, to be fair, she doesn’t know what I do either, cause I have a Film & TV degree and our latest argument was about her insisting that I use that degree to “become an influencer, because influencers make money”. That conversation would have been hilarious if I wasn’t part of it. Like listening to a tween tell you what she wants to be when she grows up…
Survival mode?!?! What happened? They had to cancel Netflix or you just had to have the $90,000 Chevrolet Tahoe and a $90,000 Ford F-150.
If the “six figures” people are in survival mode then what about the other 90% of the population with 5 figures or less?
The point is that even six-figure earners are struggling.
And there’s something to that. People with 6-figure incomes tend to work in more metropolitan areas where housing is very expensive. I make about 80 grand, and the only reason I’m getting by at all is because my drive to work is about 2 hours with traffic. A modest 1br apartment in the city where I work is about $3,000/month.
Cost-of-Living matters, but I think what you said is part of the point of the article.
Who cares, only people who make six figures are important, the others are useless eaters. Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do for your local billionaire. /s
Well. I made 35k in 1996 so apparently my salary has kept up with inflation, maybe? Google says that is like 75k today. 106.4% increase.
Together we do hit that 6 figures but
Housing cost increased by 500%
Grocery cost increased here by 500%
Electric bills by 300%
Those are the essentials, right? Other things, clothing and gas, didn’t go up as much but I drive less and (except for menopause, damn you) stay pretty much the same size and bought some items that last well, so it’s more discretionary.
I figure I’d have to be making closer to 200k to be making my 1996 salary with regard to essentials. Maybe more. I’m certainly NOT making that.
I think a simpler way of pointing this out is that the median US household income is $80k. A $100k household income is only 25% higher than average. It’s a pretty normal income. We just have “a six figure salary” as part of our cultural memory as some huge amount.
Americans with six figure incomes are not the enemy. We need them on our side in the fight against the Americans with eight, nine, and higher figure incomes
100k when you are salaried and working 70 hours while technically is still 100k it’s not really lol.
Average that shit out and stop lying to ourselves. 500k a year? Yeah fuck those people. 100k a year? Join us. Burn it all down.
Also, a quick reminder that it’s not normal to be working 70 hours a week.
I don’t consider them my enemy. I consider them privileged. Am I supposed to weep for them that they can’t buy their kids the top of the line xyz or go on vacation this year? Should I spend emotional labor because they need to move to a smaller house or stop eating out? 6 figure salary isn’t rich these days I grant you but it is a comfortable amount unless they’re trying to live beyond their means.
Six figures could be anything between 100k and 999k. If they are on the lower end, they aren’t really that privileged, especially if they are living in an area that necessitates a pay that high.
Hell, there are some places that 100k would be closer to the regions “poverty line” so to speak.
Yep, CA Dept of Housing considers an individual making less than $109k in San Francisco “low-income” - that’s about what you’d need to qualify for a 1br apartment there.
Lower 6 figures today is middle class. Or at least what middle class buying power was 40 years ago.
Especially when you factor in the cost of living in places where $100k jobs are to be found. “Six figures” may sound like a fortune if you’re sitting in rural Ohio but it’s little more than a decent wage in Seattle.
Yeah. The problem is that the goalposts keep getting pushed away faster than income is keeping up. Someone might have what is considered a good paying job, but the buying power for major purchases like cars and homes keeps taking hits. On top of that the bills get steeper and steeper. Six figures should be a fortune.
You can’t afford to buy a single family home on $100k/yr in my area. So I’m not sure it really meets the classic definition of middle class anymore.
Middle class didn’t mean a big McMansion or desirable area. It meant a modest house in a small lot in a boring suburb of someplace like Detroit where you’d work for Ford or something.
Our ideas of what kind of house we should have is really distorted. It’s like pickup trucks. What was considered an everyday pickup 40 years ago was 1/3rd the size of the behemoths available today, and of course today’s trucks cost $80,000 compared to the $6,500 of something like a ‘85 Toyota Pickup ($20k in today dollars).
Lots of homes are easily affordable with that income. Buy elsewhere.
Show me the place where you can both earn the $100k AND afford the homes. Places with higher wages also have higher costs. It doesn’t help someone in Seattle to tell them go buy a home in Oklahoma.
Yes… but you have to choose more slum-y areas. And if you have kids, they’re gonna get buillied so much.
Source, I am that kid. Moved from Brooklyn to Philly, sure, housing was more affordable, but school ratings went from 8/10 to like a 3/10. Such hell.
you have to choose more slum-y areas
Here is a random home I found after only a few seconds of looking. 3 bedroom home in Colorado Springs for $265k. Easily affordable at the stated $100k/yr income.
You can’t afford to buy a single family home on $100k/yr in my area.
you have to choose more slum-y areas
Lots of homes are easily affordable with that income. Buy elsewhere.
Cmon, you can’t cherry pick a house and say “just uproot your entire life, there are cheaper houses out there!”
Schools, job market, support system and more all play a huge part. It isn’t as simple as “just move.”
Keep in mind you’re replying to a literal Nazi, they don’t do much arguing in good faith.
The thing is though that unless you have a fully remote job you are probably not going to stay earning 100k in colarado springs
Median household income in Colorado Springs is $83k/yr. Said 3 bedroom home for $265k is quite affordable on $83k/yr.
unless you have a fully remote job
And if this is the case, you are doing even better and have a shitload more options.
There’s the additional cost that my whole family and all my friends live in the “Greater Seattle area” where housing is outrageous and climbing. If I were to move somewhere more affordable it would mean losing my entire social support system.
Low 6 figure is the minimum required to have a middle class lifestyle for one person (not a family) in California. And when I say middle class lifestyle, I mean not having to worry about bills, but still not able to buy a house or a new car without decades of saving or massive debt. Maybe you can afford a vacation once a year if you haven’t had any unexpected medical problems.
Put bluntly, those who live off labour aren’t the enemy. Those who live off property (aka others’ labour) are.
Yes, but that definion isn’t that clear cut anymore as it was during the industrial revolution. Common people have pensions, i.e. stocks. Workers ‘invest’ in their home as real estate. Executive managers can be still just workers even if they make a million bucks. The analysis isn’t that cut and dry if lots of people have investments on top of their wage job. Everyone not living hand to mouth is a kind of petit-bourgeoisie. The vast majority are not proletariat anymore.
I don’t want you to think I’m anti-leftist, because I definitely support significant redistribution and an end to capitalism. Just want people to think a bit further than mid-19th century definions and analysis which I think no longer hold. Alternative suggestions are welcome
I think the definition of working class is still pretty simple regardless of modern financial complexities. If you rely on a paycheck to make a living you are proletariat. If you own enough capital that you don’t have to work, congrats, now you are petit bourgeois.
If you can’t quit your job and live off your investments and previous earnings, you are firmly in the proletariat.
Lumping in those who day trade on T212 with those buying into investment schemes at the clubhouse isn’t helpful. “It’s a big fucking club” and it’s pretty obvious whether you’re in it or not.
Just want people to think a bit further than mid-19th century definions and analysis which I think no longer hold.
Yeah, one of the things that really shaped my views on fairness in wealth distribution was studying corporate law (and the legal cases that shaped what Delaware corporate law is today). That history adds a lot of complexity to figuring out who is the “owner” class and who is the “labor” class. Highly compensated executives often have their shareholders over a barrel, and the legal system is designed to protect management from shareholders, so long as the corporation makes some minimal token gestures towards shareholder value. In practice, shareholders have very limited means of controlling a corporation (mainly by electing directors, who tend to be officers/managers of other companies and sympathize with managers and give quite a bit of leeway when only part time supervising the officers they often play golf with).
And we can see this play out in the modern era. We have a bunch of wannabe finance bros, hopeful future millionaires, talking about financial topics and cheerleading their heroes (CEOs and founders), often being willing marks in financial investment scams. They believe that holding capital will help them survive further divergence between the haves and the have nots, but history shows that when push comes to shove, only power matters. No amount of accumulated wealth can protect against power, and those with power can always use that power to enrich themselves.
So I don’t find it particularly useful to draw bright lines on who is or isn’t the enemy based on their financial situation. We should recognize the power structures themselves, and how power is exercised (politically, financially, legally, culturally, and the old standby, violently), and work to influence things through those levers (including the power to change the levers themselves).
Those who live off property (aka others’ labour) are.
This is everyone with a 401(k) for retirement. Ie, what they will be loving off of. Not sure why you are labeling the vast majority of people the enemy…
Hell, since you are including ‘other’s labour’, then this would also include anyone living off Social Security, a pension, disability, etc. All of that money comes from other’s labour.
Your brush is way, way, way too broad. You have marked almost everyone the enemy at some point in their lives.
There’s obviously a difference between people benefitting from social services and people enriching themsleves by hoarding capital.
The person I replied to should not label those people the enemy then. As I said, he is painting with much too wide of a brush.
Well said
That’s stupid, under that definition small business owners are the enemy. Not to mention that there’s no genuine argument as to why owning property or living off it is inherently bad in any way.
This is why I keep saying that Marxism has and well truly lived past it’s usefulness. Now it’s just an outdated ideology that people try to slap on to a world it wasn’t made for.
“living off of your property” is shorthand (and so maybe we should be more explicit) for “living off of the production and labor of other people who need access to your property to do that labor”.
So yea, i think it is exploitative to restrict access your property to someone who would use it to reproduce themselves each day (a home) or would use it to produce other valuable goods and services (a job) and to require that person to pay you for access (that home again) or you’ll pay them wages less than what they produce (that job).
And i think exploitative is inherently bad.
There’s quite a few assumptions here that I disagree with:
-
Property relations are inherently tied to exploitation - That’s just not true. Voluntary exchange is not exploitative. For example, let’s suppose a musician makes their livelihood by owning a music school where they sell music lessons, and they need more instructors to meet demand so they go out and hire one. The person being hired is someone who sells their skills for a living, and they applied for this position of their own volition and signed a contract for a wage they find satisfactory… how is that exploitative? This is a win-win situation.
-
Ownership of property is the same as extraction of surplus value - Again, this is just not true. For example, someone living off their own farm without tenants or employees wouldn’t fit this critique.
-
Restricting access to property is inherently bad - First of all, I don’t know what “reproduce themselves each day” is supposed to even mean, that’s just nonsense. Regardless, restricting access to property is literally how societies manage resources. Exclusion is often necessary to prevent overuse and conflict, and when based on fair agreements, it supports both individual rights and social stability. There’s a reason why human civilization evolved throughout history to favor private ownership.
-
Labor is the only source of value in a society - This is false. Things like land (natural resources), technology, knowledge, entrepreneurship, innovation, and capital (tools, infrastructure, machines) also produce value in an economy. Of course labor is important and valuable, but it is not the sole source of value. Holding this assumption as true is just economic illiteracy because you can’t run an economy with just labor alone.
-
Inequality is the same as exploitation - Inequality is a difference in outcomes or opportunity while exploitation is unfair advantage. Not all inequality is exploitative, some of it is caused by things like effort, talent, merit, or choice. Exploitation, on the other hand, involves coercion or injustice, which makes it morally distinct. Exploitation can cause inequality, but not all inequality is exploitative. In this sense profit is not inherently exploitation even if it can be if obtained in certain ways.
When you remove these assumptions from the equation, there isn’t really a coherent argument left. Your argument only makes sense if you accept the Marxist framework as true without a second thought, which I don’t. I reject both Marxist analysis and proposals. I’m not entirely dismissive of Marxist critiques, but they have to be framed in a way where they’re able to stand on their own merits for me to consider accepting them. Otherwise, there’s no point because Marxism and its assumptions are simply outdated. It’s an 18th century framework and ideology that was made by men of that time for societies of that time. The world has changed since then and modern economies don’t work the same way anymore.
-
Living off of owning property isn’t inherently bad? Whatttttt
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm
Id even be content to let the eight figure incomes slide… at least at first. Lets start with the 100-200 dudes that have a ten digit income and work our down… the tens and nines might be enough to fix things and still leave us with plenty of ultra rich to complain about.
Trying to actively seek and categorize enemies is inherently problematic. A good ideology doesn’t seek to eliminate enemies, but to bring about positive results.
A long-lasting ideology recognizes enemies and how to defend against them, and sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
This isn’t a video game. Long lasting ideologies are flexible, practical, unifying, and care deeply about the means of achieving their goals. Short lasting ideologies are rigid, idealist to a fault, seek to divide and exclude, and care more about the ends than the means.
yeah we’re in for a real good time in this country when the middle class can no longer service the debts they’ve taken on, historically that’s just a grand ol’ time to be alive in a capitalist nation state built entirely on credit and debt…
That’s by design. End stage trickle up economics
We should build more trailer parks to house these clowns once they can’t afford their mcmansions anymore.
