Economy How the upper middle class keeps everyone else out

[BossRootin]

 

[BossRootin]

The top 1% own more than twice as much as the bottom 50%.
Somehow this is a result middle class rigging?

 

[BossRootin]

Looks the the top 1% are the ones that benefit from this "rigging" that is somehow being blamed on the middle class.

 

[panamaican]

You keep using the word legislating. Do you think 120k families are "legislating" laws and policies in their favor? Yes or no?

Yes. I even gave you a real life example.

 

[SammyPops]

120k or more. Probably depends on location.

Household income of $120K in Toronto is lower middle class.

The middle class kedp themselves out, mainly by voting for right leaning parties that do not really help htem, though they think they do.

 

[zebby23]

Thanks, Trump!

Nah... thanks to great management. Had nothing to do with Trump. Lol trust me

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Household income of $120K in Toronto is lower middle class.

The middle class kedp themselves out, mainly by voting for right leaning parties that do not really help htem, though they think they do.

Right leaning parties are not going to prevent those people from making 120k a year -- especially in Canada. A factory worker is not making that no matter who they vote for.

 

[SammyPops]

Right leaning parties are not going to prevent those people from making 120k a year -- especially in Canada. A factory worker is not making that no matter who they vote for.

Won't prevent them from earnign more, working two jobs etc. but they will implement policies that benefit the upper class.

My fav example is former Canadian PM increased tax free savings accoutn limit from $5k to $10k a year, and the middle, lower class seemed to really like it, even though its more than likely they would never afford to make use of it.

 

[panamaican]

Fair points. Im still trying to figure out how a blue collar union worker is suddenly upper-middle class --- it may say more about stagnant wages than the power of "upper-middle class" to affect legislation that hurts orhers.

Or perhsps I'm just lost at the idea that the avg stiff making 100k is effecting policy in a way to keep others from making 50k (?). Which is the vids contention

Maybe because you're not thinking about middle class in terms of economics but solely in terms of social class?

I know a plumber who makes $300k/yr. He's blue collar, no college degree, etc. But he makes $300k. He's not middle-middle or lower middle class just because his job doesn't have a fancy title and he doesn't sip tea with his pinkie in the air. He's upper middle class with a blue collar job. Kudos to him. I know guys who own landscaping companies knocking down mid-6 figures. Never wear a tie and only dress up for sunday service. Blue collar guys and upper middle class incomes.

If your electrician made a million dollars a year, would you say he's not upper class just because he's an electrician and not a doctor?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Won't prevent them from earnign more, working two jobs etc. but they will implement policies that benefit the upper class.

My fav example is former Canadian PM increased tax free savings accoutn limit from $5k to $10k a year, and the middle, lower class seemed to really like it, even though its more than likely they would never afford to make use of it.

That doesnt prevent them from achieving upper middle class income though.

 

[SammyPops]

That doesnt prevent them from achieving upper middle class income though.

for sure. I get that. It does mean there are less programs that can access to benefit them. Income splitting is another great example.

 

[panamaican]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but there is also a growing trend of upper middle class parents who are timing their children’s enrollment in both school and sports in a way that ensures that their kid is the oldest in the class, and thus giving them developmental advantages that will put them in a higher performing track (better classes, better teachers, better teams, better coaches).

I know this is not a brand new thing. I have always read about it happening, but it seems more prevalent now than ever. Granted, maybe this has always been the case and I am just a new member of that particular social class. I understand it to a point, but I do believe some lines can be crossed.

Oh definitely. I'm seeing it firsthand. And it's an economic advantage. Because if you have to pay for childcare and public school is free, lower income people simply cannot afford to put off enrollment for another year by extending the cost of preschools and such.

Also, it annoys the hell out me. I find myself talking to parents and they'll say "Johnny is so far ahead of his classmates, he's doing this and doing that." And all I'm thinking is "He'd better be, he's at least a year older than some of them." Times have changed, people use to brag about being school ready early, now they brag about delaying school entry for competitive advantage.

And it is bad for society. When an exceptional 5 year old is competing against a better than average 6 year old, the exceptional child doesn't stand out as much, if at all. And so awards and rewards end up going to the slightly better than average kid at the expense of the truly uniquely talented.

 

[BossRootin]

Maybe because you're not thinking about middle class in terms of economics but solely in terms of social class?

I know a plumber who makes $300k/yr. He's blue collar, no college degree, etc. But he makes $300k. He's not middle-middle or lower middle class just because his job doesn't have a fancy title and he doesn't sip tea with his pinkie in the air. He's upper middle class with a blue collar job. Kudos to him. I know guys who own landscaping companies knocking down mid-6 figures. Never wear a tie and only dress up for sunday service. Blue collar guys and upper middle class incomes.

If your electrician made a million dollars a year, would you say he's not upper class just because he's an electrician and not a doctor?

What's your point?
How is this plumber or electrician rigging the system to keep others out?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

for sure. I get that. It does mean there are less programs that can access to benefit them. Income splitting is another great example.

Theres no program to benefit them to get to top 20% status. The pathways are already there and easy. I get you are saying they vote against their own economic interest but there isnt really any major program that is going to help or hinder them in a real meaningful way. The pathway to 120k in canada are pretty evident and not that difficult -- you cant legislate ambition

 

[panamaican]

What's your point?
How is this plumber or electrician rigging the system to keep others out?

<{CMPALM}>
Clearly, you should re-read the exchange.

 

[waiguoren]

5:52

"The question, then, is when does good parenting become some form of hoarding or cheating?"

 

[panamaican]

Right, thanks. This is the example you gave-



This is why I said I agree with you 100%, because it is accurate, while not being unfair. It is normal, and proven, that people want to be around those who are similar to them on any level of discussion. Including housing or schools. Your example is a good one.

You mentioned property tax as part of your example, and it is a known fact that much of education comes from property tax. I know you know this. If there are (X) amount of resources, it would not be beneficial for higher income levels to not want to secede inferior districts. If my entire community was 120-180k, they would likely make a decision based around the benefit of their community, as it directly impacts all of them. Personally, when I bought into my community after researching, one of the main reasons was a school that went exactly through this. It was an incentive to buy into the community, being ensured my kid has a great school within the large affluent community. On the reverse side of this, if I was told "your kid will share the school with the kids from Gibsonton" then I would legitimately have passed on the community. Why? Because what I will pay for property tax on my home is legitimately three times the amount that those parents pay on theirs. How can they contribute to the quality of schooling I want for my child? The reality is they can't, so it is best for me to go where others are at or near equal to myself.

Do you disagree with any of this? If so why do you find it problematic, or why should I be willing to share my kids school with the other kids? I'm trying to see the "unfair" angle that I am missing here. Not that I would agree, but I don't actually see the angle at all.

You're not making any sense. You questioned if people making $120k were legislating laws in their favor. I'd already given you the example (which you just quoted back to me). If you know that I'd already typed it, why ask for an example?

Honestly, this is one of the stupidest things I've read.

Me: Here's an example of people legislating to keep others out.
You: Yeah, I think it's fortunate.
Me: It's not fortunate if you're thinking in terms of maximizing the nation and not the individual.
You: I'm thinking about the individual.
Me: That's fine but it's not fortunate if you're thinking in terms of the nation.
You: No one is talking about whether or not it's fortunate.
Me: WTF?

Also Me: You said that you think it's fortunate.
You: You're trying to trick me. Do you think people are really legislating to keep people out?

Me: WTF? <45> I typed that in the first line.
You: Yeah, I remember that but I think it's a good thing.

Me: WTF? I'm not going to re-hash the same conversation. This is fucking insane.

Just re-read the last 3 pages of type and save me the trouble of saying the same thing twice. Start here:

Spoiler

We are not fortunate for it to be this way but that entirely depends on what the long terms goals are. If you're talking about maximizing the nation's human resources in the furtherance of remaining international top dog, it's not a good thing. If you're talking about maximizing an individual family's climb up the economic and social ladder then it is.

In my opinion, I prioritize maximizing the nation's resources. But that's because I come from a background where I've seen the impact of how nations fail to do so.

If the children of the upper middle are truly elite and/or superior then they will outcompete their poorer counterparts, given an equal footing. If they're not and they're artificially raised into positions of power then we're impoverishing our nation in terms of intellectual capital.

 

[F1980]

I pay a nice premium every month on my HOA fees to keep the riff raff out. No section 8 losers in my neighborhood. It's against community rules to rent out your home.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Maybe because you're not thinking about middle class in terms of economics but solely in terms of social class?

I know a plumber who makes $300k/yr. He's blue collar, no college degree, etc. But he makes $300k. He's not middle-middle or lower middle class just because his job doesn't have a fancy title and he doesn't sip tea with his pinkie in the air. He's upper middle class with a blue collar job. Kudos to him. I know guys who own landscaping companies knocking down mid-6 figures. Never wear a tie and only dress up for sunday service. Blue collar guys and upper middle class incomes.

If your electrician made a million dollars a year, would you say he's not upper class just because he's an electrician and not a doctor?

I think a million is upper-class regardless of how you got it, but you sort of make my point. If those blue collar jobs that make 2-300k are upper-middle then we probably need to change the standard of only having 3 slots (lower, middle, upper) to acct for the 115ish class.

 

[panamaican]

I think a million is upper-class regardless of how you got it, but you sort of make my point. If those blue collar jobs that make 2-300k are upper-middle then we probably need to change the standard of only having 3 slots (lower, middle, upper) to acct for the 115ish class.

We don't need another standard. 120k puts a household in the upper 25th. $300k puts them in the top 5 %, so it's probably better to say that the plumber is upper class. The exact division for the plumber is secondary to my point.

Which is that you were delineating based on their job types, not their income. That the blue collar guy couldn't be upper middle class because he was blue collar. I'm saying that someone can be in blue collar job and still be upper middle class and someone can be in a professional job and still be low or lower-middle class (lord knows there are plenty of lawyers who were making less than $40k year out of law school).