While this certainly might be interesting today, you glossed over the fact that middle class was earned by a single income in earlier days.
Which I think is far more interesting.
It'd be interesting to see when this balance tipped on a timeline.
There's a lot of factors at play here. I can imagine a time where not everyone in the middle class had an expectation of going to college. I could also imagine a US advantage on skilled labor that would have yielded far better wages which has steadily eroded under globalization. I am also imagining a time when taxes where less burdensome. Probably some other factors at play that I am overlooking as well, still I wonder when the tipping point was 1980s?
Great point. We have feminism in part to thank for that. Corporations are thrilled to now get two workers for the price of one.
Re:$250K a Year Is Not Middle Class
by eli_gottlieb on Monday December 28, 2015 @09:46PM
(#10804872)
>So who is getting them? Banks with their Mortgages? Schools? Government? Restaurants?
Banks and landlords, mostly. Local governments would love to get in on it all, but Prop 13 restricts their ability to raise real-estate taxes.
But looking at it a different way, where is the money going in those various locales? Given the cost of living in the Bay Area compared to the Columbus metro area, the amount of 'pay dollars' is generally flowing out at a much higher rate in the Bay Area, but they are soaked up just as quickly as they are in Columbus. So who is getting them? Banks with their Mortgages? Schools? Government? Restaurants? How can you have a population of people making $200K a year in one place experiencing the same level of "wealth" as people making $100K a year in another place? That makes for an interesting conversation.