But you dont have to move to a different state or province. If someone moved from the expessive Toronto hub an hour or so away to Guelph or Kitchener, the cost of a similar home is probably cut in half. And also the farther out you go from metro hubs, the homes and neighbourhoods will be newer and more spacious too.
Yup.
I was specifically addressing a guy who said to move out of the coastal areas. Well, for some of us it isn't some faraway resort or vacation you go to once every five years, it is our home, it is where we grew up and where we lived and where our families are. I am sure the capitalists would love for us to become atomized individuals thousands of miles away from all the connections we have, but that is not healthy for people and not healthy for society in the long run.
That news is an eye opener though as Upper Class certainly can be redefined the way you illustrated from your own neighborhood. You have to think about places like Jamaica or the Bahamas too. I've worked with the lower class (poor) from these countries and there's really not a Middle Class at all. It's them and then all the retiring celebrity millionaires. It says a lot about the person too. I understand how if you'd made it big and wanted to retire on an island. However, they do little (other than pay taxes) to support and tend to not like that there are still 'natives' on "their" islands. Same case with Hawai'i but a much older tale than those I mentioned.
I get it.
Is that supposed to be some kind of sick burn?
What is this communist nonsense? The "middle class" has existed for a THOUSAND YEARS since merchants, artisans, and craftsmen could own their own property and thus were neither nobility nor serf.
Put in modern economic terms the "middle class" exists between the dirt poor living paycheck to paycheck (or off government dole) and the folks with capital to invest or enough passive income generators to not have to work at all but still maintain a high standard of living.
The "middle class" today often encompasses both partners working because the lifestyle has inflated, not the cost of the basics or wage stagnation. Look at the size of the homes today versus the 40s. Every family member had a computer in their pocket. There is a TV in every room. Cars are far more advanced than they were. The trips are more elaborate, no more roadside motels with the whole family crammed in to see Disney. But easy credit is a trap, that is true.
Some of you guys are just silly. Get the FUCK out of those big cities by the coasts with that insane real estate and be "middle class" in "middle america" and see how easy it can be. Yeah, there aren't 50 hip restaurants in a mile radius, not every concert rolls through, and yah might have to see a cow at times, but trust me, it's worth it
as for the "middle class" going back thousands of years, you do realize that back then, be it a small corner store owner or a merchant with a fleet of ships, they all counted as "middle class" right? even back then the term was rather meaningless since it was basically anyone who's not a noblity or peasant. and while we're on the subject of the past, sure there were less other expenses back in the 40s than today, but a lot of the other expenses were also higher than they are today. all the home appliance and furniture combine would be more expensive than the house itself and often requires their own payment plans. you really can't make a good comoparison between then and now. and your point of city vs country can also be flip the other way around. why is it that the argument is always "city folks should get out of the city and see how folks live out in the country."? why is it never the other way around? "let's get folks from the country into the city and let them live there and see what they can learn."? there are difficulties with both life styles. take myself for example. I live in LA and I don't own where I live at. I rarely go to any "hip restaurants" when I dine out, and I had never gone to any concert out here in the last 25 years. I like living here because of the variety, convenience, selection and opportunities it provides. and it's not like I don't know the country life either. I worked out of Wyoming half a year every year back in my last job and I would stay and travel through Utah and South Dakota also. there are a lot of things that's great with country life, but in the end it's not for me or a lot of other folks. the "middle class" situation is the same. maybe it would be easier to be "middle class" out in the country, but that life style is no longer something that is suitable, obtainable or desireable for everyone. that's why I said "middle class" is meaningless because all of us would count as "middle class" too and we all live extremely different life style. if someone wants to chase the "middle class" dream, then by all means go for it. but I'm fine the way I am now, just working and living, without "class".
Could they possibly be spending a bigger percentage on those things because wages haven't risen with productivity since the 70s? There's a study that says millennials and younger are the most frugal among us and yet the younger generations still aren't making ends meet. At that point it isn't an individual problem, it's a systemic issue.
It certainly fucked over kids that thought taking out 100k+ in loans for an english or theater degree was a good idea.
So degrees that won't earn as much should cost less to get? But they don't. Seems like a systemic issue again.
Being hired "fast enough" is not the same thing as "not being fucked over". These people also cannot afford the same standard of living as their parents did.
Degrees shouldn't only be for people that can afford them bud. They're supposed to be what helps you get ahead. Not be gatekept for those that can afford them. You're just describing more systemic issues but can't see it. You only see individual failure. Why does it cost 100k+ for garbage degrees? Hell why should it cost 100k for any degree? You don't think there's a fucking problem when a college degree already gives you more debt than the last generations' houses cost them right out of the gate. How can you even act like it isn't a systemic issue at that point?
The degrees cost that much because students have easy access to loans. I'll agree that sally/fannie mae is a HUGE problem because colleges have started chasing students with luxury instead of quality of academics. Cut the easy money train and watch colleges shed those 50 faculty "diversity engagement" departments and start working on rigorous educations that show a successful hiring trend again.
You and everyone else.
Except other countries can have these same degrees without sending their citizens into massive debt. Maybe we should enjoy their way of doing it.
And other countries flood our schools with students because they are the best. Maybe they should do it our way??
You’re so close. The problem isn’t access to student loans, it’s what public universities are using that money for, i.e. the luxuries you mentioned. If you use access to student loans as the problem, then the implied solution is to reduce access, which leads to a less educated population which in turn, makes the country as a whole less competitive with other nations.
Pretty much. Of course fat chance of that since now the federal government is the one making the money handing out those loans. (I think I've mentioned the feds nationalized the student loan industry back in 2009/2010. )
The plan I like the best is a university garnishes a percentage of your wages for x years. So a premed program might garnish 10% of your pay for 10 years (expected to make 200k/yr so the college makes 200k) but an English degree takes 20% for 10 years (expected salary 50k so 100k). If you don't earn, the college makes less. Incentives them to get students that will perform, focus on degrees that can earn, and keep costs down for the liberal arts that really shouldn't cost that much. Put the onus to show value of a degree on the college.
Or, and hear me out, the rich kids from overseas, who could go ANYWHERE, come to America because our schools are the best. Those cheaper subsidized foreign schools just aren't as good if cost is no object. Maybe less well off Americans should go to college in Sweden or China?
So schools are expensive for Americans everywhere, is that what you are saying?Subsidised foreign schools are not subsidised for foreigners
What is this communist nonsense? The "middle class" has existed for a THOUSAND YEARS since merchants, artisans, and craftsmen could own their own property and thus were neither nobility nor serf.
Put in modern economic terms the "middle class" exists between the dirt poor living paycheck to paycheck (or off government dole) and the folks with capital to invest or enough passive income generators to not have to work at all but still maintain a high standard of living.
The "middle class" today often encompasses both partners working because the lifestyle has inflated, not the cost of the basics or wage stagnation. Look at the size of the homes today versus the 40s. Every family member had a computer in their pocket. There is a TV in every room. Cars are far more advanced than they were. The trips are more elaborate, no more roadside motels with the whole family crammed in to see Disney. But easy credit is a trap, that is true.
Some of you guys are just silly. Get the FUCK out of those big cities by the coasts with that insane real estate and be "middle class" in "middle america" and see how easy it can be. Yeah, there aren't 50 hip restaurants in a mile radius, not every concert rolls through, and yah might have to see a cow at times, but trust me, it's worth it
You seem to be under the impression that the "middle" class still exist in a meaningful way, like they used to do, but then you give an example in which you basically prove otherwise. Middle classes have existed historically, yes, and to an insignificant extent still do. Not too long ago they were called the "petite bourgeoisie", who owned their own small-scale means of productions and the fruits of their labour.) nor do they own their own means of production. They are employed in wage-labour, regardless of whether or not they earn 40K or 200K. Classes are determined by your relation to the means of production, not what the number on your pay-check says.
Housing prices are on the rise in most of wake county, but still lower than California I imagine. Cost of living isn't too bad.
Seems odd to come in with a totally different definition of something then condescendingly tut tut at someone for using the commonly accepted definition but ok.
Regginator
marxist definition is correct, as class is divided between those that have to work for others and those that don’t. It’s a clear distinction. This is why I called out communist nonsense. In THIS country (America) this "working class" bullshit doesn't fly. What we DO have here is lower, middle, and upper class defined by your economic resources and folks can freely move up and down based on their ability, drive, opportunities, and luck. There isn't a caste system here like India, nor some sort of "upper/lower" system propagated by anything other than your own ability and circumstances. Obviously there are factors that limit folks moving up, we ain't all upper class, clearly, but to sit there and say "the middle class is a myth" when there is a thriving small business system in the US, lots of well paid white collar jobs, plenty of blue collar money to be made with some hustle, and guess what, folks COME HERE to work, by the damned MILLIONS, ain't no one rushing to get to those communist countries due to economic security, a guaranteed roof over your head, and three squares a day. Might as well just get yourself into a prison, same end result.It all depends if you call the class on the rung lower “working class” or “lower class”. If the former then
But if it’s the latter, and we have lower and middle classes, where both are working class, then the boundaries become fuzzy and we’re mostly in the realm of aesthetic differences.
Eyeballing it, it looks like tuition is about +175%. Using a compounded interest calculator, that is approximately 5.1% growth per year for 20 years.I've posted this before, but the cost of college tuition has gone up at such a ridiculously high rate compared to just about everything else. Makes you wonder what the hell is going on there.
If you look at when the central banks started trying to control inflation in the late 70s, you'll also see how much that has fucked everyone over when it comes to wages. They said it would be good for wages but they've stagnated ever since.
Meanwhile, in LA
