Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:No, That's incorrect... (Score 2) 306

by PortHaven (#46818903) Attached to: In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor

"rather I'm just VERY good at money management"

No you're not...perhaps you're just living a simple life, that may be.

You make less than $10,000/year.

I'd like to know how you afford a somewhat new vehicle. (3 years old is considered somewhat new btw). But for even most cheap new or nused vehicles, you're looking at around $250+ easy.

So of your $850. We've dropped it to $600.

"I drive in a 2005 Buick Regal that I got for some trivial amount some 5 years ago (I think $1,500?)"

Let's see, so 5 years ago, 2009. You got a 4 year old Buick Regal for $1,500. Okay, so in other words, someone handed you a gift horse? or you bought a stolen/damaged vehicle. Because you'd be hard pressed to buy that car for $1,500 today. Ah...salvage title, now the truth comes out. Not every state allows those to be easily registered btw. Nor are they always safe, all appearances aside.
And individuals with children should be extremely cautious about taking such risks.

"my tablets and smartphones seem to do a better job at those tasks."

You've admitted to having tablets and smart phone.

Let's knock off another $50/month for those.

$800

Okay, so you now have $800/month. This has to go to rent, food, etc.

How much is your rent? Are you freeloading off a friend/roomate who covers most of the burden (mortgage, heat, utilities) and is just look for a roomate to ease that burden and drop some spending cash in his pocket?

Let's say you're frugal on food...$75/month?

And you still do some major travels, internationally? Disney? etc? We're not talking about freeloading with friends or camping.

****

Sorry, I'm calling BS on this. That doesn't mean you don't have an excellent life, one that likely brings you far more happiness than most. Nor that you don't manage the small amount of money you have very well.

That's cool that it works for you. And simple = good. But you don't really fall into the middle class.

Comment: Re:No, That's incorrect... (Score 2) 306

by PortHaven (#46818845) Attached to: In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor

Must be Ar-Kansas...

Cause for many of us, even once we pay off our mortgages. We still owe about $4K-$8K in taxes, and home insurance. And I guess not every person, not even in IT, needs internet or a cell phone.

$2,500/month
-$1,000/month house
(that's for a $100K home ($500 mortgage, $500 taxes + insurance), maybe there are low taxes so $750 where you live.)

-$300/month Utilities (and I'm being rather kind, that's electric, heat, water, etc)

- $25/month Phone

- $25/month Internet (can anyone find even DSL at this price? for me its closer to $60)

- $300/month Food for 6, lots of rice and beans.

- $50/month Gas

Okay, we're at $1,700 of the $2,500. We've gone with excessively low dreamy estimates (about half of what most of us would actually pay). We have left out health insurance, you got the free ride on Obamacare, right? And we left off cars. Cause you bought a Honda 15 years ago and it still hasn't died. Unlike many of us, who've done ALL the required and recommended maintenance, and still had our cars die or need major repairs.
 

Comment: Re:Never was the class of Leisure (Score 1) 306

by PortHaven (#46818539) Attached to: In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor

It is also possible to have 1 & 2, and never succeed in opportunity. In fact, some of the greatest folks. Likely would not have been anything if not for #3.

Steve Jobs is a great example, without #3 (Steve Wozniak), it is unlikely Steve Jobs would have gotten anywhere beyond mediocrity. The pairing of the two enabled success.

Comment: Re:By what definition of "rich"? (Score 1) 306

by PortHaven (#46818523) Attached to: In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor

But you have to realize you're still focusing on "middle values" rather than a "middle class lifestyle".

If 80% of middle-class Americans fall from the middle-class. The middle class has "shrunk".

For instance, we could have a class break down like thus...

1% = Wealthy Elites
3% = Middle Class
97% = Lower Working Class

In fact one aspect of economic fascism was a two class system (vs 3 class in capitalism/socialism and 1 class in communism). A labor class and an aristocratic class.

In fact, what we'd really like to have in America is about 70% of Americans in the "middle class" tier. Think of it more as the equivalent of the "mercantile tier" or "landowner class" hundreds of years ago.

Comment: Re:By what definition of "rich"? (Score 1) 306

by PortHaven (#46818493) Attached to: In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor

No, that's the whole point. "Middle Class" has NOTHING to do with being in the middle of income, etc.

I personally consider myself to have just recently entered the lower middle class. I own a fixer upper house, and two mostly new vehicles (granted one is a Nissan Versa - cheapest car you could buy). That said, I have zero retirement or savings after 2008.

Middle class is not just about income, but about security, staying power, etc. I would categorize another aspect of middle-class being that one in the middle class could retire at 50-55 if they had too. A working class folk could NOT do that.

Comment: Re:Middle Class != Rich (Score 1) 306

by PortHaven (#46818473) Attached to: In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor

I have a friend who graduated with a social work degree. Discovered, there are lots of jobs, but none that pay. (Wife and I shook our heads seeing an ad for a social work position requiring a masters, it offered $35K salary - how do you live on that, let alone pay off a masters?)

So my friend went back to school for nursing. Senior year she failed a class for a second time. *boop* Out of the program. Now stuck with a ton of student loans she'll never be able to pay.

Colleges are protected their from bad business practices. They might as well rape and pillage the young.

Comment: This statement is true... (Score 2) 306

by PortHaven (#46815381) Attached to: In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor

"A study in 2006 revealed that Americans with a household income of more than $100,000 indulged in 40% less “passive leisure” (such as watching TV) than those earning less than $20,000."

I can attest, that I work 40, commute 2+ hours a day. While those under $20K receive Section-8, Food Stamps, etc. And yes, they often have more free time to watch TV than I do. I get to watch Game of Thrones & maybe one other weekly show.

Heck, we had friends who fell on rough times stay in our guest bedroom the past year. And I can personally attest that they've probably watched as much TV in a week or two as I have all year.

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk

Working...