The report, which crunched the numbers for all 50 states, is based on Pew Research’s definition of middle class: two-thirds to double the median household income.
This kinda strikes me as a bit of a disingenuous definition. Being middle class always struck me as having a moderate amount of disposable income after all regular life expenses.
If you're living in an expensive part of your state, you could well be above that 66% of median state income mark, but still be quite impoverished.
I agree, but I think I can guess why they do that - they can maybe get total income from aggregate tax records, but disposable income would have to be asked individually.
Before Reagan became President, 'middle class' was still defined as one job being able to support a family of four. By the time Bush Sr. left office, 'middle class' was two incomes to keep the house going. At the same time, $1 million went from being a vast personal fortune to what a rich guy paid for a party.
yup. im single income with a wife that has a lot of medical issues. We barely stay afloat but if I was single I would be rich. If we had universal healthcare we would be doing great to.
That's wild. If I was making 100k a year I'd be able to retire in a decade. I make about a third of that and I've got virtually everything a man could ask for.
I made 100k / yr for a decade. I was not able to retire. Tho, I am in a better position than many of my peers.
I no longer make 100k / yr, but I'm still above median for my state, and with this job I can also help provide care for a disabled family member in their home.
It's all based on the median household income. I feel like that isn't the best representation if the median household is losing purchasing power over time due to wage stagnation, but it's the definition they went with. From the article:
The report, which crunched the numbers for all 50 states, is based on Pew Research’s definition of middle class: two-thirds to double the median household income.
Yeah I see now. I think I can calculate a meaningful upper bound using the GINI index. I'll see if I can work out numbers that look plausible, and make another post sometime.
Yeah, there's kind of a big flaw in this. I'm in California, too. It's a huge state, and there re giant swaths of it that don't have especially high cost of living, but the population centers like LA and San Francisco are very, very expensive. Taking the median isn't going to give you a realistic answer for most of us.