Middle Class Part 3: The Class Defined and the Rest of My Points

Before continuing with all of the things I actually did include, or had a mind to, in an email exchange with a narrow-minded talk-show host I thought I should define what most people generally understand to be the middle class.

Any definition of who is referred to when speaking about the middle class, must take at least two things into consideration- a social and an economic component (how much you think the former is dictated by the latter is a matter of debate):
1) Wikipedia’s social definition of the middle class- “consists of those people who have a degree of economic independence, but not a great deal of social influence or power.” I would argue the idea of “economic independence,” because it implies that they have ready money spirited up from some place other than what is earned working for someone else. It is clear that the middle class doesn't have an awful lot of social power- at least not manifest/real power. Karl Marx probably has a better definition, but it probably includes the word “bourgeoisie,” and people hate it when I use big words. Besides, quoting Marx is liable to have me pegged as a communist- funny stuff.

2) an economic definition would run something like this, from numerous clicks on the internet in search of a working definition: a household income of between $30-$90 thousand dollars a year, give or take. Unfortunately, we are taxed, so that is an ill-defined barometer, as it isn’t actually “income;” it isn’t coming INto our household. Also, as Liz Pulliam writes in a May 21, 2007 article for MSN money, (one that should be read for a further idea of what I’m talking about), $50,000 in San Francisco or Manhattan is different than it is in Iowa.
The URL: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2003-09-14-middle-cover_x.htm

Here are the rest of my points sent to the talk-show host in the course of the email exchange:

*- actually included in the text of at least one of my emails

* a) the income disparity between the upper and the middle class will continue to grow because the rich can send their kids to school, to good schools. With a good school on the resume, a job seeker can get a leg up on the competition- Stanford, Arizona, even the U of M will allow one this advantage, as compared to a community or technical college, if any. An education from a more respected institution gets someone a job that pays more. People go back to college to earn master’s credits so that they can earn even more money. Hopefully, having the majority opinion of a good education equating to more lifetime earnings, by and large, isn’t a non sequitur, or something that cannot be proven. Just go with me on this one.

b) Minnesota is continually in the top 7 most taxed states in the country. What kind of overtaxation relative to the rest of the country, well, I'll have to look into that;

* c) college tuition costs keep rising; I attached five links to articles that backed up my point with quotes such as college tuition rising 6% in 2006 (my “cost of living” increase was about half that). The quotes immediately below were included in one of my emails (courtesy of a Rob Kelley cnn.com article).;
"After grant aid and tax benefits, full-time students at public four-year colleges are paying an average of $2,700 a year in net tuition and fees. But this number has increased at an even faster rate than published prices because grant aid hasn't kept pace with tuitions.” AND "Over the past decade, total student aid, including grants, loans, work-study and tax benefits, increased by 95 percent, adjusted for inflation.” AND "But loans have grown to become a bigger part of aid packages, while grant aid has shrunken.” See, this is important because loan implies something that will need to be paid back with interest; a grant is a gift.

Here is just one link: http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/24/pf/college/college_costs/index.htm?postversion=2006102716

* All of that means, in my opinion, that children born to middle class families will have to pay until middle-age on the loans they will have to take out in order to afford college. Again, I can’t prove that, and I’m bad at math, but that looks pretty bad. Yes, education will cost plenty 15 years from now. Get out your abicus and use any % increase you want, but the cost of education isn't going down and the government isn't likely to regulate the price, just like they can't regulate the price of gas . . . hahahahaha, that was funny.

* d) students must take out loans because the middle class parents don’t make enough in salaries to put the necessary money away which would prevent the middle class kids from paying so much interest on the borrowed money for college;

* e) middle class parents won’t be able to put away money because just as the rich, they would like to at some point- go on a vacation, buy a reliable vehicle; have to pay for: a daughter’s wedding, their son’s participation in a youth sports activity, their parent’s funerals, a new furnace and air conditioner when they break down after 18 years, gas in their vehicle, property taxes, state and federal income taxes, medical costs, a tree to plant in their yard, which gives back to the environment by producing oxygen and reducing carbon dioxide; we might also like to put as much money away for our kids to help them out in life, and to help ourselves in our old age by saving money for retirement. Oh, and let us not forget about a mortgage payment- for it is a good thing to own a home- I’ll get back to this one;

* f) those things in (e) above, the rich can pay outright for and have money left over for servants, extravagant eating out, multiple vacations, multiple homes, more vehicles than one can drive at a time, spoiling their children with things they may never make them work for, appreciate, or earn- like mopeds and college educations. And I’m not being unreasonable, I know that those making just over $90k a year are not going to be able to purchase outright the things in (e), but they can do more than the middle class and the poor. I am primarily talking about the richest 10% of people in the country;

* g) cost of living increases are not matching inflation; (I got an above average raise, so someone thinks I worked hard enough and didn’t just milk the system. I will net about $22 every two weeks after taxes, medical costs, charity contributions, and 401k retirement account deductions- hardly things for which I can or should avoid having deducted from my paycheck. By the way, I work the entire year for that type of raise;

* h) and I work for a company in good standing, that is perceived to be an industry leader, though I am not obliged to reveal its name;

* i) I speculated that he was short and mentioned that he was a pit bull without any teeth based on the lack of a compelling argument (and this is before the recent outbreaks of pit bull attacks)- huh, precognition- who would have thought that- I should attempt to reveal something with more political gears, something with more impact- like excessive taxation and the continual rising costs of goods and services, the future effects of constant waves of illegal immigration, the punishment of narcissistic professional athletes on capital punishment islands . . . but I digress;

* j) I conceded that I could not, in fact, prove my point because you can find numbers that completely contradict other numbers if you are partial enough to your own cause; but then I mentioned that he must be a science fiction fan, because everything I was speculating on wouldn’t be able to be proven for the next twenty years and unless time travel were an option available to him- he also could not disprove it;

* k) I mentioned that getting through to him was more difficult than getting peas into the mouth of a two-year old and that he was more stubborn than Mad Jack’s old Number 7, a mule the character escorted through the mountains on his way to meet up with Grizzly Adams (a television program from the late 70s);

* l) I stated that I was emailing in lieu of calling in because he was a talk show host and you don’t win arguments with them- because they have all day to research for a two hour show, take your call with 30 seconds left in a segment, hang up or interrupt when they disagree with you, and can then spend the next two segments stating things you would have touched on if you weren’t interrupted in the first place;

m) An income class should be measured by how much NET income is brought into the household- not because a person who has a doctorate in economics says that it should be measured by pre-tax income. You can’t spend money you don’t have- this is something the poor and responsible middle class have known for years and the rich will never know.

Next time: a summary of his responses, such as they were. Again, I must take this approach in order to reveal the short-sightedness, and the laziness of his argument, which reflects the going rate of exchange on this topic by those who aren't thinking much about the future, judging by what is happening in the present- primarily because it does not benefit them to do so.