$250,000 A Year Is Not Middle Class Anywhere In America

by: David Sirota

Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 08:53


Last year, the New York Times told us it's difficult for people to make ends meet on $500,000 a year, and the Washington Post insisted that it's hard to "squeak by" on $300,000 a year. Now the Denver Post insists that if you make $250,000 a year, you may only be "middle class":

The $250,000 income cutoff has become a near-mythical figure in American politics, setting up a heated and sometimes highly personal debate...Are (those who make $250,000 a year) rich? Or, as some define that income range, simply middle class?

This follows CNN's Kiran Chetry famously insisting that "Some would argue that in some parts of the country" $250,000 a year "is middle class" - which itself was a follow-on of ABC anchor Charlie Gibson making a similar assertion at a 2008 presidential debate. Put it all together, and you have a pretty intense misinformation campaign to make us believe that the very wealthy are, in fact, poor.

It is, of course, misinformation. Even in the wealthiest, highest-cost-of-living places in America, $250,000 is most decidedly not "middle class":

As census data show, state median incomes vary from $65,933 in New Jersey to $35,971 in Mississippi. But even in wealthy states, $250,000 ain't bad-it's nearly four times the median income in wealthy states like Maryland and Connecticut. And even if you look at the wealthiest metropolitan areas-Washington, D.C. ($83,200); San Francisco ($73,851); Boston ($68,142); and New York ($61,554)-$250,000 a year dwarfs the median income...

[T]he number of places where $250,000 stretches you is small indeed-certain parts of Greenwich, Conn.; several neighborhoods in Manhattan; some of California's coast. Even in the most exclusive communities where the wealthy congregate, $250,000 is still pretty good coin. Consider this: CNNMoney recently ranked America's 25 wealthiest towns. In all of them, someone making $250,000 would have a difficult time buying his dream house. But in all of them, making $250,000 means you're doing better than most of your neighbors. Even in America's richest town, New Canaan, Conn., the median income is $231,138.

This isn't to say that you are living the life of Bill Gates if you make $250,000 a year. Nor is it to say someone making that amount isn't working hard. But it is to say that if you make $250,000 a year, you aren't anywhere near the "middle" - and, in fact, you have plenty of money to not have to worry about money, unless you are making profligate discretionary choices.

That's a key point in what constitutes "rich" and "not rich," and kudos to the Denver Post for at least examining that problem of profligacy among the wealthy:

David Sirota :: $250,000 A Year Is Not Middle Class Anywhere In America
"One of the things we know about people is their consumption expectations uniformly expand to fill their income," said Jeffrey Zax, a professor of economics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "But there's strong social pressure not to think of ourselves as wealthy. There's a fair amount of self-deception going on here."

Indeed, while "wealthy" can have negative connotations in the minds of the wealthy, it's not a word that automatically connotes value judgment. You can be a wealthy person who fully earned your wealth through the hardest of hard work, and you can be a wealthy person who received your wealth through no work at all (think: trustafarian). You can be an honest wealthy person or a dishonest wealthy person. You can be a greedy wealthy person or a charitable wealthy person.

You get the point - in attempting to avoid any negative connotations, wealthy people delude themselves into believing they aren't actually wealthy, when, based purely on math, they are both relatively wealthy in comparison to everyone else, and extremely wealthy in terms of being able to afford the basic necessities of life even in the highest-cost-of-living locales in the nation.

The problem, of course, is that perception can become reality.

Media voices perpetuate these myths of the impoverished wealthy, in part, because many media voices are themselves wealthy - and there's no more powerful class solidarity than that which exists among the rich.

Indeed, the wealthy don't just convince themselves they aren't wealthy, they try to create the perception among themselves, politicians and the public at large that they are "middle class" and thus persecuted by taxes. Put another way, the real danger of the New York Times, Washington Post and Denver Post article floating the idea of the wealthy as not wealthy is in skewing our political debate over economics. If someone making $500,000 is just "getting by," and someone making $300,000 is barely "squeaking by" and someone making $250,000 is in the persecuted "middle class," then having any fact-based discussion about tax inequities becomes that much harder.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"Abandon all hope...?" (4.00 / 2)
Their "intense misinformation campaign" just makes them sound consistently out of touch with reality.

Are they trying to lose readers/listeners/watchers? What is their purpose? Do they think people are stupid?

They only call it class war when we fight back.


Yes (0.00 / 0)
Of course they think people are stupid, and well they should. consider how many working class people voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

[ Parent ]
Traditional Corporate Media (4.00 / 4)
Problem is so many of those in traditional corporate media, especially in broadcast news, they make so much more money than $250K a year and most of the people they interact with make so much more that it becomes hard for them to grasp the reality.

Charles Gibson was making over $7 million a year when he retired. Hell Anderson Cooper on CNN has a multi-million dollar per year salary.

I just think when you get to that level of wealth even if you came from less that you simply do not comprehend how some folks have less.


"Once Upon A Time, There Was A Poor Family...." (4.00 / 3)
"The father was poor, the mother was poor, the little boy and girl were poor, the butler was poor, the maid was poor, the driver was poor, and the gardener was poor."

I forget where that came from, I think my sister ran across it in something she read when we were kids.

Anyone?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
one of those legends? (4.00 / 2)
re: once upon a time...

I did some digging around and found this, from a book entitled Pocket Peace:

I once read about a teacher in a privileged private school who asked her fifth-grade class to write an essay about poverty. One ten-year-old began his by writing, "Once there was a very poor family. They were so poor that the butler was poor, the maids were poor, and both chauffeurs were poor."

I also found the story attributed to a third grade teacher whose student might have written it.

A third grade class in a Beverly Hills school was given the assignment of writing a story about a poor family. One little girl submitted the following:
Once upon a time there was a poor family.
The father was poor, the mother was poor, and the children were poor.
The butler was poor, the maid was poor, and the cook was poor.
The gardener and the chauffer were also poor.
Everybody was poor. The end.

Regardless, it's oft repeated:

InternetSecurityGuard   2003-05-19 09:40:08 AM
Once upon a time, there was a poor family. The daddy was poor. The mommy was poor. The daughter was poor. The son was poor. The cook was poor. The maid was poor. The butler was poor. The gardner was poor. The driver was poor. The valet was poor. The stablemaster was poor. The pilot was poor. They lived in a run down mansion on top of a big hill. One morning, the cook exclaimed "Oh, my! We are all out of beluga caviar! What ever shall we do?".... and the little boy grew up to run for president. And they lived happily ever after.


[ Parent ]
And of course many live in the highest cost locales (0.00 / 0)
Often because of their jobs....but their perception of what it takes to "get by" is seriously skewed.

And of course there's the education issue as well.

Unfortunately the great public schools of the cities (Think of NYC from the 1930s to the 1960s) and broadly distributed excellence and opportunity in the suburbs is a thing of the past. Meaning that to ensure your kids can maintain their status --- or make it to the next level, whatever that is ---- many of the highest earners cluster in a tiny set of towns or neighborhoods with perceived educational advantages.

This applies to media and non media "creative class professionals" and "symbolic analysts" alike.  


[ Parent ]
But they also live in high cost locales (4.00 / 2)
because they can. It's another privilege that is invisible to them.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Debating the Wrong Issue (0.00 / 0)
I believe you're debating the wrong issue.  People can argue over what dollar amount of income defines the middle class, or the upper class, or the poor, or who made what ridiculous statement.  But the real issue is, if you raise taxes on those making above $X/year, how does that affect everyone?  How does that affect the economy and the welfare of the poor and middle class?  How does it change people's behavior?  How does government behave when you raise its income?  Those are the important questions you are glossing over.

See the problem David is getting at (4.00 / 4)
But the real issue is, if you raise taxes on those making above $X/year, how does that affect everyone?  How does that affect the economy and the welfare of the poor and middle class?

The problem is the debate they're currently having is raising taxes on those making about $250k a year effects the middle class by raising taxes on THEM, because the media is trying to convince us these people are "middle class"

I come from a very wealthy family that has an income of close to $250k a year and was left completely unscathed by the recession, owns two homes (the second of which is more of a compound than a home), travels to exotic places, and is able to eat filet mignon as an afternoon snack, and yet they consider themselves middle class when they're very clearly not.

Before we start talking about how to benefit the middle class, we need to hammer out what the middle class actually is.  


[ Parent ]
At The County Level, Median Incomes Top Out At ~$100k (4.00 / 2)
Drops off rather sharply from individual towns (from Wikipedia):

Counties with populations of 250,000 or more:

Rank  County                      Median Household Income  
 1    Loudoun County, Virginia 	    $107,207
 2    Fairfax County, Virginia 	    $105,241
 3    Howard County, Maryland 	    $101,672
 4    Somerset County, New Jersey    $97,658
 5    Morris County, New Jersey      $94,684

Counties with populations 65,000-250,000:

Rank  County                         Median Household Income
 1    Hunterdon County, New Jersey    $100,327
 2    Calvert County, Maryland         $95,134
 3    Arlington County, Virginia       $94,876
 4    Stafford County, Virginia        $87,629
 5    Fauquier County, Virginia        $84,888



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Note the heavy VA and MD Skew (4.00 / 2)
Those are the counties surrounding DC.  Where is their income coming from?  Tech & Telecom is very heavy there and there is a big cluster of Defense Contractors in the Dulles area. Financial Services and Consulting is pretty heavily represented to. Where are their contracts coming from hmmmm....

And the Mandarins wonder why people are so pissed off?


[ Parent ]
You forgot (4.00 / 1)
graft, influence peddling, bribery, etc., and most probably, given the government's adeptness at accounting, outright theft -- embezzlement, expense-account padding, and other assorted fiddles large and small.

[ Parent ]
$250k is in the top percentages of income. (4.00 / 7)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Only the top 1.5% make that much, just 1 in 66. That can't be called middle class in any way. And that this may still be a low income in some countries, like Martha's Vineyard, doesn't change the fact that this is not the lifestyle of the typical US family. Pundits and polticians who believe otherwise are totally removed from reality.

It seems we have forgotten one economic class (4.00 / 4)
"Well-to-dO"   The obvious fact is that any family with an income of $150K-250K is doing quite well.  Thank you very much.  The real question is, should the well-to-do be taxed at a rate higher than the working class who uses nearly all of it's income on basic living expenses.  Even at $150K a family of four can live a comfortable secure life.  Perhaps not in some neighborhoods of L.A., or New York City, or Washington, D.C., but there are usually nearby areas where you can find affordable housing at that income level.  

It would seem that at some level we would have to decide to require some enhanced responsibility, tax-wise, for such uncommon good fortune.  Such good fortune usually comes through the work of many less fortunate.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
$250,000/year (4.00 / 1)
I understand your basic point, but think your analysis and language are really sloppy.  Median income includes young people, retired people, single person households, etc.  Using median income, therefore, skews the numbers downwards in relation to two-earner households at the peak of their earnings power.  I cannot find the numbers in the census data, but I believe if you looked at household earnings of, for example, families with two 50-year olds in California, you would find that $250,000 is on the high end but certainly not wealthy.  Common sense alone confirms that.  Two engineers in southern California working at Northrop could easily be making over $250,000 -- do you really want to classify them as wealthy?  It is very reasonable for someone with a college (and certainly post-graduate) education to have the expectation of making $125,000 in his or her lifetime -- to categorize that as "wealthy" and advocate higher taxes as a result doesn't seem to be the best way for Democrats to proceed.

As an aside, I've always thought the best measure of wealth is wealth -- that is, assets -- rather than income.


Go with individual income of $250,000 (0.00 / 0)
Raise what constitutes lower upper class amongst two filer households to somewhere in the $300,000-$350,000 range.

[ Parent ]
Are you suggesting that only the "wealthy" should be taxed? (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying that (0.00 / 0)
If you were asking me. I'm saying that only the top tax bracket should have it's taxes increased, but agreeing that households with two incomes should not be treated the same as individual filers.

[ Parent ]
Common sense confirms (4.00 / 5)
that two engineers in southern California working at Northrop and making $250,000 are among the top 1.5%.

They can deny their wealth all they want but there is no reason for the 98.5% of the rest of us to go along with it and pretend they are "middle class."

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Interesting.... (4.00 / 3)
I have a college degree and two Master's degrees and my highest salary ever was $62,000.  I was at the top of my salary scale as a teacher.   It would have cost me another $25,000 to get a doctorate and it would have netted me a one step increase in my salary....$1185 (was a one step).  I paid for my own MA degrees.

And for the record when I made my top salary I had taught 37 years.  I guess I have a different view of reasonable.  I think making six figures is above the middle.....and making $250000 WAY above the middle.


[ Parent ]
It is amazing how certain fields (0.00 / 0)
Think that a masters degree or PhD entitles them to wealth.  But as you point out this is not universally true.  Teachers, policemen, firemen, many others usually have extensive education but only dream of $100K jobs. The idea that going to college automatically makes you entitled is a justification for greed.  When we look at the downturn and hardship in this country, there is nothing more etiological than greed.  The willingness to take and justify more than you need, more than your share.  The unwillingness to pay a fair progressive share of the national burden.  The absolute disregard for those who have less.  The lie that reducing marginal rates will create jobs.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
I think we should look at why Obama chose $250,000 in his campaign (4.00 / 2)
It wasn't about the reality of living conditions, or that it was some magical point at which all your economic woes disappear.  It was about votes.  It was the highest number that he thought he could bullshit the public into believing.  In other words, the poisonous concept of raising taxes wouldn't affect damn near anyone.  He was hoping that he could get more votes with a "Read my lips" promise.  Of course in his first year he has already proposed a tax on union workers.  And there will be other taxes on those below the "magical" $250K.

Over the last thirty years the wealthy and the well-to-do have committed the largest embezzlement in history.  If you don't believe so,  just checkout the shift in percentages of national wealth between the working class and the upper classes during that period.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


Embezzlement? (4.00 / 1)
Funny, all that time I spent working long hours, weekends and holidays to earn a couple of University degrees and work my way into the field of medical research don't really seem like an embezzlement plan.

Where is the fraud?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Fraud (4.00 / 1)
Have you ever paid $30 dollars for a cup of coffee because the bank charged you nearly infinite interest on a one day loan to cover the cost?  Even if you deposited money earlier in the day, they'll handle the transactions at the end of the day in whatever order gives them the most money.

How about the fact that payroll taxes turn our theoretically progressive tax structure into something very regressive.  That fraud has been going on since the 80's bipartisan "fix".  Today they are working to "fix" the system again, now that the progressive half of the deal is about to come due.

Yeah, fraud seems like a just word.  That doesn't mean everyone who earns above average money is involved, but still.


[ Parent ]
My point wasn't that any one person was guilty (0.00 / 0)
But there has been a massive shift of personal wealth from the working people to the upper classes, principally because of the reduction of the marginal tax rates.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
yeah, I guess some of us are just collateral damage (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Reducing the marginal tax rate, shipping jobs over seas, cutting wages for workers, (4.00 / 1)
raising health insurance rates.  Granted, upper income people have the money, power, and crooked lawyers and politicians to make it legal.  But it's still a fraud on 250 million people.  

Oh yeah, and the bullshit that the rich "create jobs."  Quit whining about how hard you work.  You're not the only one who went to college.  How about teachers?  Policemen?  Most of them have degrees?  But then they aren't ripping off the sick.   If you're make $250K or more, it wouldn't hurt you to pay the same taxes as a man earning that in 1981.  Other than you might miss out on a few toys.

BTW,  you were the one that put your own life into this so I'm just helping.  I don't care how much you make, as long as you pay the taxes that will sustain this country.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
I pay taxes (4.00 / 1)
You "put [my] life into this" when you made the blanket statement to the effect that the "well-off and rich" had perpetrated embezzlement, then left it up to me to figgure out that you weren't painting with as broad a brush as your rhetoric suggests.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Curve (4.00 / 2)
I agree with all you wrote here, Dave.

I think the issue, though, is the wealth curve in this country doesn't really take off until you get to the top .5% or top 0.1% or so.  The folks making "only" $250,000 a year are comparing themselves to the super wealthy and find themselves falling very short.  How could one be rich at only a quarter million a year when Wall Street bonuses go into the millions, they may ask themselves.  

And it may well be true that these people are more similar to the middle class than they are the super wealthy.  (So it seems.)  They drive to work, just in a nicer car.  Shop for themselves, just not at the discount place.  Their house is bigger, but there are no servants.  (Well, only every other week, that doesn't count.)  Sure, they go out to dinner several times a week, but really, who doesn't do that?  (Or so they think.  Besides, they could stop if they wanted.  Probably should, they make enough money to be saving more, but it is so easy...)


But comparing themselves to the super wealthy (4.00 / 2)
is exactly what they need to stop doing. It's a skewed sense of reality.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Complicated subject (4.00 / 1)
I've thought about this a lot, and probably should post a diary.  But for now a few thoughts.  First, I think it's crazy to push the idea that incomes of $250,000 are not middle class, "true" or not.  There are too many people at that level, especially in certain places, and a lot more close enough to aspire/identify.  Especially if the alternative is to call them rich, or upper class.  There's just as much difference between them and someone making $2 million as there is between them and the average American, let alone Bill Gates.  Perhaps our categories for class are too limited.

Which brings me to the second point.  We need to somehow get past the idea that tax increases are only legitimate for the "wealthy."  If we ever were to really pass single payer, or other decent welfare state measures, we'll need to start raising taxes a lot lower than $250,000.

Finally, I in fact don't think it's accurate or fair to call people at that level "wealthy," for reasons that other people on this thread have enumerated, and one I'll add.  The fact is that most people at the $250k income level if they get sick, or long-term unemployed, are vulnerable to a big fall.  Sure they tend to have better disability insurance, more savings, etc., but it varies, and at the end of the day, many could fall into poverty or at least near with bad luck.  A slower, perhaps shallower fall than the average working person, but still a nasty one.  Really wealthy people have enough socked away that they can always live off the investment income and maintain at least a middle class lifestyle.  It's this security that sets them apart from everyone else, including the "upper-upper middle class," or the "comfortable" or whatever we want to call them.


It wouldn't be a bad idea to create new high income tax brackets (4.00 / 3)
There is a huge difference between making $250,000 per year and making $10,000,000 per year, and new tax brackets should reflect that reality. Creating several new brackets ($250,000-$500,000, $500,000- $1,000,000, $1,000,000-$5,000,000 and so on) and taxing each bracket at a higher rate would allow the highest brackets to be taxed at extremely high levels without allowing right wingers to cloud the issue by arguing about where middle class ends and upper class begins.  

[ Parent ]
Completely missing the point... (0.00 / 0)
Middle class, poor, wealthy, whatever. The price brackets assigned to each "class" are arbitrary moving targets.
These arguments are a total distraction and utter waste of time. What we decide to call middle class in the 2nd quarter of every leap year isn't important. What IS important is recognizing why Americans engage in this exercise to begin with. The reason is: Americans in the middle/wealthy class are sick and tired of government taking as much as they please from their wallets. They're fighting in every way they know how to keep the fruits of their own labor and if calling themselves middle class will save them from the latest tax hike then so be it. What the federal government in particular gets away with is outrageous. The federal government should only collect the minimum taxes required to fund the functions expressed in the Constitution and THAT'S ALL! These pet/social/whatever projects should be run at the state level exclusively. That way I have the choice moving out of state if I think my state is taking more than it's should and those who support higher taxes in exchange for government programs can move in or stay. In addition the people of each state have greater influence on policy. Then we can finally drop all these phony meaningless labels and the people of each state can live happily, in one nation, under dog, indivisible, with yada yada, yada yada...

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox