General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswho belongs to the lower middle class and why does it matter?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/12/who-belongs-to-the-lower-middle-class-and-why-does-it-matter.htmlIts been a good week, rhetorically, for those who care about reducing inequality. Last Tuesday, in his first papal exhortation, Pope Francis bewailed the unequal distribution of global wealth, using language that sounded, at times, quite Marxist: But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. On Wednesday, President Obama cited the Popes argument in a speech that laid out his economic priorities for the rest of his second term, adding, But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country. And it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people.
Rhetoric is one thing; action is another. One difference between the Pope and the President is that the latter has a hand in setting economic policies that could help to solve the problem. Notably, Obama didnt say much in his speech about his policy plans, other than reiterating his call for a higher federal minimum wage. What else can the government do? A memo issued on Wednesday by the Hamilton Project, part of the Brookings Institution think tank, suggests some answers to this question.
The Hamilton Project focussed on what it termed lower-middle-class families with annual incomes between fifteen thousand dollars (roughly the federal poverty level for a two-person household) and sixty thousand dollars, according to the memo. (To know how your own income level compares with the federal poverty level use this government Web site. You will see that in most states, for example, an annual household income of a hundred thousand dollars for a four-person family is four times the federal poverty level.) About thirty per cent of families belong to the lower-middle-class group:
Compared with the poorest families, lower-middle-class families are more likely to be headed by married couples and to benefit from two incomes:
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)We were doing far better before we were ponzied.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...in the "Between 100 percent and 250 percent of FPL" are married people with one income earner.
We began our marriage with both of us working, then I stopped working to be a stay-at-home mom for many
years. Then the shineola hit the fan. Suddenly, being a stay-at-home mom was incredibly risky from a financial/economic perspective.
When my husband was laid off, for a year, we lost our total income and our medical insurance. When he returned to work (in the IT industry), we took a 30 percent paycut. We've never recovered that income, and my husband is working at a higher level, as a network engineer and working more hours than when he was making a six-figure salary.
Total economic shock. We learned real quick that having one income was equivalent to playing economic Russian Roulette.
I've returned to work. I don't judge any family for the choices that they make, but I often wonder how people sleep at night with one income--given our recent tumultuous economic situation and the uncertainty that lies ahead.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Apartments in the Boston metro area rent for over twice what they do in Raleigh Durham, for example.
So the lifestyle that you can afford on 250% of FPL may be quite nice in some parts of the country. It would be rather bad in NYC or San Francisco.