Majority Earn Less Than $30K, Dependent on Government

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

This doesn't count 8 million unemployed, and 94 million "not in labor force"-- the lowest workforce participation rate since the 70's.


www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year.html

[happyhoix]

The middle class is screwed.

Might have something to do with the fact that middle class wages have only gone up by about 1.8% in the last ten years while the 1% has grown very fat.

The middle class is stagnating at best. At worst, they're sliding down into the lower classes.

[Deleted]

It isn't just the top 1%, but the top 20%:

www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/09/10-not-just-1-percent-income-reeves

I would not want to be graduating college today, with no experience you are in a dog fight for basic entry level positions. If you have a degree and 10-15 years experience at least where I am at you are making bank.

[bean29]

You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here. The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me…

-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

That first number is truly staggering. The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.

I always have a problem with headlines like this though, because they are talking about income for individual workers and then they talk about poverty level for a "family".  My family has 4 individuals.  All of us had income last year.  Mom, Dad and 2 college kids.

So, if you have a Mom + Dad each earning 20,000 a year = $40,000 in income so they are above the poverty level.  How many low income families do you know where one spouse earns $20,000 and the second one has no income?  Even if 2nd spouse retired or disabled they would have income.  If it is a single mother + 4 kids to = family of 5 well  you thought having multiple kids and no 2nd parent in the picture would result in something other than poverty?

Even if DH and I had divorced, I would have collected child support and poverty would have been unlikely.

[djAdvocate]

time to raise FMW to at least $10/hr.  that will put anyone full time above $20k.

[mmhmm]

Oct 26, 2015 12:37:57 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

This is F'ng depressing.

It really is! How on earth do these folks survive? I'm not even asking how they have the "good stuff." I'm trying to figure out how in the heck they stay alive! I guess if you live in a rural area where you can grow your own food (if you can afford the seeds, fertilizer, water, and whatever else), it might be better, but it sure isn't going to be anything close to reasonable, IMO.

[midjd]

I live in a LCOLA and those numbers don't surprise me too much. However, most of the people I know earning those types of wages are in dual-income households, so it's not quite as dire as it seems. With a couple of exceptions, my local friends (all college-educated but in low-paying professions) earn in the $30K - $40K range, but since their spouses make about the same amount, that puts them at around $60K - $80K for families of 2-5. They all own homes, finance cars, have kids (or could at least afford to), and do all the other things associated with the middle class.

The problem comes in when one spouse desires/needs to stay home with the kids, or loses a job... not much wiggle room. 

[fairlycrazy23]

This is not just full time employees, there is 14% making under 5k, So even increasing the FMW, probably would not materially effect this particular chart.
As of 2012, less than 5% of hourly workers made at or below the FMW, which means 95% of hourly workers make over the FMW.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 26, 2015 12:55:17 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

This is not just full time employees, there is 14% making under 5k, So even increasing the FMW, probably would not materially effect this particular chart.
As of 2012, less than 5% of hourly workers made at or below the FMW, which means 95% of hourly workers make over the FMW.

in that case, the OP is pretty much meaningless, right?  because nobody is actually making a living on that, and has other sources of income.

IE- a SAHM that works part time at a deli on weekends would be counted in these stats, even if her family is ineligible for welfare.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 26, 2015 12:44:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 26, 2015 12:37:57 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

This is F'ng depressing.

It really is! How on earth do these folks survive? I'm not even asking how they have the "good stuff." I'm trying to figure out how in the heck they stay alive! I guess if you live in a rural area where you can grow your own food (if you can afford the seeds, fertilizer, water, and whatever else), it might be better, but it sure isn't going to be anything close to reasonable, IMO.

i think that the stats are not saying what people think they are saying.

what is the federal maximum for Social Security, for example, without getting taxes taken out?  i am sure it is under $30k.

[fairlycrazy23]

The data is just SS wages, could be part time workers, or probably even a full time employee that started to work mid-year.
A better set of data might be BLS website.

[djAdvocate]

actually, if two spouses make $30k/year, that is pretty solidly middle class HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

edit: the OP is not an article.  it is a piece of PR flack for a book.

[happyhoix]

Oct 26, 2015 12:52:05 GMT -5 midjd said:

I live in a LCOLA and those numbers don't surprise me too much. However, most of the people I know earning those types of wages are in dual-income households, so it's not quite as dire as it seems. With a couple of exceptions, my local friends (all college-educated but in low-paying professions) earn in the $30K - $40K range, but since their spouses make about the same amount, that puts them at around $60K - $80K for families of 2-5. They all own homes, finance cars, have kids (or could at least afford to), and do all the other things associated with the middle class.

The problem comes in when one spouse desires/needs to stay home with the kids, or loses a job... not much wiggle room. 

I live in a LCOLA too and I know what you mean - two couples in the 60 - 80 range can do ok.

However, if they both have student loan debt, or one of them gets downsized or fired and is unemployed for very long, things can suddenly get rocky. And forget about being a SAHP.

I remember (I'm 55) when I was a kid and we lived a moderate middle class lifestyle where all the moms I knew were SAHM's. My dad supported four kids and his wife on his engineering job alone. He was able to pay for a house, two cars, and put all four kids through state university with no student loan debt.

That was when the middle class was healthy. Now it's staggering along.


 



 

[zibazinski]

Which is why you see them not getting married while pro creating. First the marriage penalty tax wise. Then as a single mom you get EITC which can be a hefty chunk. My tenant gets almost 10k a year. No stigma in child born out of wedlock. I have two friends who have sons that have children with baby mommas. Neither woman will marry the sons bcuz financially it makes no sense. Mom and dad live together and raise the kids. Just not legally married. It'd cost them both too much to do so.

[sesfw]

Mom and dad live together and raise the kids. Just not legally married. It'd cost them both too much to do so.

Maybe this is why my g-dtr lives with her boyfriend and their little daughter ....... I still believe in marriage and the commitment.

But I'm old fashioned and 'g-ma, you just don't understand'.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 28, 2015 6:56:51 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Which is why you see them not getting married while pro creating. First the marriage penalty tax wise. Then as a single mom you get EITC which can be a hefty chunk. My tenant gets almost 10k a year. No stigma in child born out of wedlock. I have two friends who have sons that have children with baby mommas. Neither woman will marry the sons bcuz financially it makes no sense. Mom and dad live together and raise the kids. Just not legally married. It'd cost them both too much to do so.

you keep bringing up the marriage penalty, but i thought that either Bush or Clinton got rid of that thing.

wrong?

[zibazinski]

Very.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 28, 2015 11:04:50 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Very.

ok, thanks.

[973beachbum]

I seriously doubt most of the lower income people work FT.  Business' around here are getting to the point where FT isn't even an option.  Then add kids into it and daycare becomes totally unaffordable.  So at the best they can get jobs so that they work different shifts.  but I have known people who by default the one who made less just stopped working.  It wasn't a choice just what they had to do.

I know people here will say they don't have to have children,  but having kids is a biological imperative.  People can put it off but it really is a deep seated urge/need.  Saying don't to me is kind of like telling someone to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes.  While I know I won't die, it still doesn't help me stop that need to take a breath.

There is also the belief in people who work sporadic hours for low wages that they will never be rich.  Define rich however you want they just know they won't be it.  If I knew I would never have much any way what is the point of not doing it now?  The only alternative then is to never have kids and to a lot of people that isn't something they can choose to do.

[busymom]

I'm thinking people are in the same situation as my DD. When she's home from school during the Summer, she's promised full-time hours, but usually gets closer to 30 hours a week. Even if she's scheduled for 40, if the business day is slow, she gets sent home early. She has worked 2 jobs the last 2 Summers to make sure she's earning at least 40 hours of pay per week.

I am SERIOUSLY worried about the middle class. Either minimum wage has to go up, or companies have to actually allow their employees to work their scheduled hours.

[thyme4change]

Clearly the solution is to cut funding to education on all levels.

[fairlycrazy23]

Oct 29, 2015 8:15:54 GMT -5 busymom said:

I'm thinking people are in the same situation as my DD. When she's home from school during the Summer, she's promised full-time hours, but usually gets closer to 30 hours a week. Even if she's scheduled for 40, if the business day is slow, she gets sent home early. She has worked 2 jobs the last 2 Summers to make sure she's earning at least 40 hours of pay per week.

I am SERIOUSLY worried about the middle class. Either minimum wage has to go up, or companies have to actually allow their employees to work their scheduled hours.

I am also worried about the middle class, but raising the minimum wage is not the solution. 

[Deleted]

Oct 28, 2015 10:56:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 28, 2015 6:56:51 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Which is why you see them not getting married while pro creating. First the marriage penalty tax wise. Then as a single mom you get EITC which can be a hefty chunk. My tenant gets almost 10k a year. No stigma in child born out of wedlock. I have two friends who have sons that have children with baby mommas. Neither woman will marry the sons bcuz financially it makes no sense. Mom and dad live together and raise the kids. Just not legally married. It'd cost them both too much to do so.

you keep bringing up the marriage penalty, but i thought that either Bush or Clinton got rid of that thing.

wrong?

DW and I get hit with it.  It doesn't exist in the 10/15% brackets but starts in the 25% bracket.  For example, two single people combined get up to $181,500 at the 25% rate but married people only get up to $151,200 at the 25% rate.  Potentially 30k of income gets charged at a 3% higher rate if you are married than single for a marriage penalty of $900. 

[busymom]

Oct 29, 2015 9:39:59 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Oct 29, 2015 8:15:54 GMT -5 busymom said:

I'm thinking people are in the same situation as my DD. When she's home from school during the Summer, she's promised full-time hours, but usually gets closer to 30 hours a week. Even if she's scheduled for 40, if the business day is slow, she gets sent home early. She has worked 2 jobs the last 2 Summers to make sure she's earning at least 40 hours of pay per week.

I am SERIOUSLY worried about the middle class. Either minimum wage has to go up, or companies have to actually allow their employees to work their scheduled hours.

I am also worried about the middle class, but raising the minimum wage is not the solution. 

  Why not?  Clearly, you were not sitting in the same economics class as me in college.    Remember that stuff about supply & demand?  When you increase wages, people spend more money.  Which increases demand, which creates jobs.  It's a win-win.

  I will agree that increasing the minimum wage isn't the complete solution, but it's a part of the solution.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 29, 2015 9:39:59 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Oct 29, 2015 8:15:54 GMT -5 busymom said:

I'm thinking people are in the same situation as my DD. When she's home from school during the Summer, she's promised full-time hours, but usually gets closer to 30 hours a week. Even if she's scheduled for 40, if the business day is slow, she gets sent home early. She has worked 2 jobs the last 2 Summers to make sure she's earning at least 40 hours of pay per week.

I am SERIOUSLY worried about the middle class. Either minimum wage has to go up, or companies have to actually allow their employees to work their scheduled hours.

I am also worried about the middle class, but raising the minimum wage is not the solution. 

FMW is not a solution for the middle class.  it is a solution for the poor, however- and provides a NON-WELFARE floor through which nobody, who is willing and able to work, can fall through.  i see value in that whether anyone else does, or not.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 26, 2015 12:29:48 GMT -5 bean29 said:

You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here. The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me…

-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

That first number is truly staggering. The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.

I always have a problem with headlines like this though, because they are talking about income for individual workers and then they talk about poverty level for a "family".  My family has 4 individuals.  All of us had income last year.  Mom, Dad and 2 college kids.

So, if you have a Mom + Dad each earning 20,000 a year = $40,000 in income so they are above the poverty level.  How many low income families do you know where one spouse earns $20,000 and the second one has no income?  Even if 2nd spouse retired or disabled they would have income.  If it is a single mother + 4 kids to = family of 5 well  you thought having multiple kids and no 2nd parent in the picture would result in something other than poverty?

Even if DH and I had divorced, I would have collected child support and poverty would have been unlikely.

I get what you're saying, but the reality is that if TWO (2) people are working-- call it "mom and dad"-- and they're only scraping together $40K a year-- then they may not be in poverty (poverty is relative in the US, anyway- there's really no such thing as abject poverty here), but they are definitely in a *kind* of poverty.  They're in a position where they can't afford for anyone to quit working, but they can't afford the ancillary services required to sustain a two-income household-- especially if they have children.  This is why I like the tax proposals I heard last night that address the payroll tax.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 29, 2015 10:24:04 GMT -5 @aj said:

Oct 28, 2015 10:56:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you keep bringing up the marriage penalty, but i thought that either Bush or Clinton got rid of that thing.

wrong?

DW and I get hit with it.  It doesn't exist in the 10/15% brackets but starts in the 25% bracket.  For example, two single people combined get up to $181,500 at the 25% rate but married people only get up to $151,200 at the 25% rate.  Potentially 30k of income gets charged at a 3% higher rate if you are married than single for a marriage penalty of $900. 

As long as we have a tax code that rather than fund the government is really all about social engineering- I'm not necessarily opposed to a disincentive for two-income marriages.  Have kids, and raise them is a good plan.  Have kids, and stick them in daycare-- less than the ideal.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 29, 2015 11:35:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 26, 2015 12:29:48 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I always have a problem with headlines like this though, because they are talking about income for individual workers and then they talk about poverty level for a "family".  My family has 4 individuals.  All of us had income last year.  Mom, Dad and 2 college kids.

So, if you have a Mom + Dad each earning 20,000 a year = $40,000 in income so they are above the poverty level.  How many low income families do you know where one spouse earns $20,000 and the second one has no income?  Even if 2nd spouse retired or disabled they would have income.  If it is a single mother + 4 kids to = family of 5 well  you thought having multiple kids and no 2nd parent in the picture would result in something other than poverty?

Even if DH and I had divorced, I would have collected child support and poverty would have been unlikely.

I get what you're saying, but the reality is that if TWO (2) people are working-- call it "mom and dad"-- and they're only scraping together $40K a year-- then they may not be in poverty (poverty is relative in the US, anyway- there's really no such thing as abject poverty here), but they are definitely in a *kind* of poverty.  They're in a position where they can't afford for anyone to quit working, but they can't afford the ancillary services required to sustain a two-income household-- especially if they have children.  This is why I like the tax proposals I heard last night that address the payroll tax.

what were the payroll tax proposals?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 26, 2015 12:35:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

time to raise FMW to at least $10/hr.  that will put anyone full time above $20k.

And the people that can't get jobs, or lose their jobs will be at $0. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 29, 2015 12:11:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 29, 2015 11:35:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I get what you're saying, but the reality is that if TWO (2) people are working-- call it "mom and dad"-- and they're only scraping together $40K a year-- then they may not be in poverty (poverty is relative in the US, anyway- there's really no such thing as abject poverty here), but they are definitely in a *kind* of poverty.  They're in a position where they can't afford for anyone to quit working, but they can't afford the ancillary services required to sustain a two-income household-- especially if they have children.  This is why I like the tax proposals I heard last night that address the payroll tax.

what were the payroll tax proposals?

www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/28/ted-cruz-rolls-out-flat-tax-plan/