ABC's 20/20 "Whatever happened to the middle class"?

[Singuy]

I see nothing, zilch, nada wrong with criticizing people who live beyond their means and then cry poverty.

I see nothing wrong with that either. I don't agree with the idea of dismissing real people in poverty by labeling documentaries like this as liberal fake news propaganda. One family in the show maybe shouldn't cry poverty...all of a sudden people in poverty doesn't exist and its all some conspiracy to guilt republicans and to spoon feed democrats a liberal agenda.

[Nutria]

I see nothing wrong with that either. I don't agree with the idea of dismissing real people in poverty by labeling documentaries like this as liberal fake news propaganda. One family in the show maybe shouldn't cry poverty...all of a sudden people in poverty doesn't exist and its all some conspiracy to guilt republicans and to spoon feed democrats a liberal agenda.

The show was about the alleged middle class, not the lower class.

TH's only point was that the people in that show shouldn't be considered middle class, because they aren't doing the things required to be in the middle class.

[disneysteve]

This hits the nail on the head.
You can either sit around and whine about your situation, or you can do something about it. Relocation is the smart move in many cases, but people just won't do it.

My dad tells stories about how he and his sister lived on the farm with his aunt & uncle while his dad traveled the country working construction on military base projects during the build up for WW2. Sent the money back home and that is what kept the family going.

This is partly a by-product of the incessant push for home ownership. When home ownership rates were much lower, the population was more mobile and was more likely to relocate to go where the work was. But between banks and realtors and lenders hammering away to convince everyone that the American Dream is a house of your own, it has caused people to become more tied to their location.

Up until about WWII, the home ownership rate was less than 50%. By about 2005, shortly before the crash, it was up to nearly 70%.

[Singuy]

The show was about the alleged middle class, not the lower class.

TH's only point was that the people in that show shouldn't be considered middle class, because they aren't doing the things required to be in the middle class.

Taking a look at this chart..it seems that Rent takes up 1/3 of your pay if you are a min wage worker in 1950 compared to almost 65% of your pay today.
This chart tells me that even people working 1 job in the service industry still had a middle class lifestyle in the 1950s vs today.

And that's the take home message from the show. It's trying to show that the majority of American workers are getting paid around or slightly more than the min wage today but needs to live the lower class life unlike yester-years.

[TexasHusker]

That is very interesting.

But 60 years ago, middle class was an 800 square foot house with maybe one garage if you were lucky. There was no DirecTV, Starbucks, car leasing, Netflix, alarm systems, granite counters, and blind spot assist.

Apples to oranges.

[disneysteve]

But 60 years ago, middle class was an 800 square foot house with maybe one garage if you were lucky. There was no DirecTV, Starbucks, car leasing, Netflix, alarm systems, granite counters, and blind spot assist.

Apples to oranges.

I totally agree. When they make charts like that looking at "cost of living" they are comparing vastly different lifestyles.

[Singuy]

That is very interesting.

But 60 years ago, middle class was an 800 square foot house with maybe one garage if you were lucky. There was no DirecTV, Starbucks, car leasing, Netflix, alarm systems, granite counters, and blind spot assist.

Apples to oranges.

Based on the chart with rent only taking 1/3 of your pay..you can have wiggle room to go bigger, or indulge into..milkshakes(whatever the star bucks at the time was) and be okay.

With rent taking up 2/3 of your pay today..you have no choice but to live in a closet with spiders, take up roommates, or not own a car. Compromises you may not have to make in 1950 for a small family.

[rennigade]

With rent taking up 2/3 of your pay today..you have no choice but to live in a closet with spiders, take up roommates, or not own a car. Compromises you may not have to make in 1950 for a small family.

All people have to do is skip that $4 coffee each morning and pack a lunch...then everything would be hunky dory.

[TexasHusker]

Based on the chart with rent only taking 1/3 of your pay..you can have wiggle room to go bigger, or indulge into..milkshakes(whatever the star bucks at the time was) and be okay.

With rent taking up 2/3 of your pay today..you have no choice but to live in a closet with spiders, take up roommates, or not own a car. Compromises you may not have to make in 1950 for a small family.

Rent is more because houses are more. Houses are more because there is more house. A lot more house. That's because people demand more house even though they can ill afford more house, and then they cry "we aren't middle class" because the balance sheet doesn't work.

There is PLENTY of nice, affordable housing. But you might have to skip the plantation shutters, triple garage, and media room.

[TexasHusker]

All people have to do is skip that $4 coffee each morning and pack a lunch...then everything would be hunky dory.

That's $120 a month!

[Singuy]

Based on the fact that one guy haven't watched a movie in 20 years, I seriously doubt he is spending 4 dollars/day on coffee.

Also the "more house" argument doesn't hold up when you are talking about renting.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3700-Curry-Ford-Rd_Orlando_FL_32806_M64706-22990

This is an example of a rental costing $780 for a 437 squareft studio in a very mediocre part of town (schools are below average). Orlando is also a LCOL area. I don't exactly call 437 squareft a mansion.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Another real problem is that people who make less money are less mobile.

Tom are you paying for people to relocate for these blue collar jobs? I mean yes you do that with white collar but are you subsidizing the blue collar ones too? Paying to sell their house? Paying for movers? Making it easy peasy to move.

I can tell you tech companies and all big companies are paying to relocate people they want to where they want. All these fancy white collar jobs so it's easy to pick up and move. But I'm not so sure it's that CHEAP and EASY to do when you are living paycheck to paycheck.

Are you giving them 2 months free in a hotel? Are you giving them meals for travel? Are you giving them free trips to buy a house or find a rental? Are you hooking up those people with apartments? Or realtors? Shipping of cars?

Or are you expecting these blue collar middle class people to somehow apply, scrape together money and move? I can say honestly moving is expensive. We did it but we had money and time. I can also say moving when you are a poor grad student SUCKS. Of course you have nothing not even furniture so in some ways it's easier.

But to move your family for this great paying blue collar job? When you don't have enough to start? Seems like there are other problems inherent with differences between what you get as a white versus blue collar worker.

And anyone on this site who wants to argue that relocation packages with tax gross up isn't offered to most white collar works would be lying. I mean doesn't the military also pay for most moves? If they put on the military family what would happen? Would they be so willing to move for each job if they had to foot the bill themselves?

[rennigade]

That's $120 a month!

Yep...$1,440/year. That will go really far for a family of 4. I wonder what kind of vacation that would offer? Heck in 3 weeks my wife and I will spend around $900 for 3 days of skiing and rentals. Just for skiing, no food, no lodging, no car rental, etc etc. $1,440 isnt what it used to be.

I guess if that family of 4 invests that $1,440 over the course of 20 years it'll be like $4,000. Then they can take a real vacation to their nearest beach town and not have to eat ramen noodles and sleep under a bridge with the homeless people.

Im exaggerating a little...$1,440 saved per year is a lot of money...but its not going to change your life. YOu can cut back as much as you want but saving an extra $4500/year wont move the needle that drastically. Thats the reality.

[TexasHusker]

Based on the fact that one guy haven't watched a movie in 20 years, I seriously doubt he is spending 4 dollars/day on coffee.

Also the "more house" argument doesn't hold up when you are talking about renting.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3700-Curry-Ford-Rd_Orlando_FL_32806_M64706-22990

This is an example of a rental costing $780 for a 437 squareft studio in a very mediocre part of town (schools are below average). Orlando is also a LCOL area. I don't exactly call 437 squareft a mansion.

Number one, a good clue they are filling viewers full of b.s. is by embellishing the story. Hasn't seen a movie in 20 years? Give me a break.

If a 437 square foot apartment is renting for $780 a month, I don't call that a LCOL area.

You can rent in the nicest neighborhood in my city for that amount per square foot per year - all brick, all the fancies.

[TexasHusker]

Yep...$1,440/year. That will go really far for a family of 4. I wonder what kind of vacation that would offer? Heck in 3 weeks my wife and I will spend around $900 for 3 days of skiing and rentals. Just for skiing, no food, no lodging, no car rental, etc etc. $1,440 isnt what it used to be.

I guess if that family of 4 invests that $1,440 over the course of 20 years it'll be like $4,000. Then they can take a real vacation to their nearest beach town and not have to eat ramen noodles and sleep under a bridge with the homeless people.

Im exaggerating a little...$1,440 saved per year is a lot of money...but its not going to change your life. YOu can cut back as much as you want but saving an extra $4500/year wont move the needle that drastically. Thats the reality.

But that's just for a daily cup of coffee. How many more $1440 opportunities are sitting around, and at what point does that add up to real money?