I think everyone on this board recognizes that the nature of the American middle class has forever changed over the past 30 years. And while we can (and do!) forever debate the causes for these changes, I can't help but wonder what the term will mean to the next generation of Americans.

The next generation may seriously question the ROI of college costs if the number of professional jobs can't absorb the number of graduates. Damaged personal credit and an inability to save for down payments will reduce home ownership. And unless something changes, the retirement savings rate will mean hardships and complete dependency on struggling programs like social security.

I may just be pessimistic, but I think things are bleak for the next generation of the middle class and based on recent studies of Millennials, that's going to come as quite a shock.

Middle class will mean a net worth of $0 to -$50,000.

(04-04-2014 10:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Middle class will mean a net worth of $0 to -$50,000.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/13/retireme...-balances/

Quote:People on the verge of retirement, ages 55 to 64 years old, saw their nest eggs grow to an average balance of $165,200 from $143,300 in 2012, Fidelity said. Savers with both a 401(k) plan and Individual Retirement Account managed by Fidelity had larger nest eggs, with an average balance of $261,400, up from $225,600 in 2012.

Even a balance of $261,000 is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement. And many Americans are much more woefully unprepared for retirement. A 2013 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that nearly half of workers had less than $10,000 saved.

(04-04-2014 10:31 AM)Hitch Wrote:  I think everyone on this board recognizes that the nature of the American middle class has forever changed over the past 30 years. And while we can (and do!) forever debate the causes for these changes, I can't help but wonder what the term will mean to the next generation of Americans.

The next generation may seriously question the ROI of college costs if the number of professional jobs can't absorb the number of graduates. Damaged personal credit and an inability to save for down payments will reduce home ownership. And unless something changes, the retirement savings rate will mean hardships and complete dependency on struggling programs like social security.

I may just be pessimistic, but I think things are bleak for the next generation of the middle class and based on recent studies of Millennials, that's going to come as quite a shock.

It depends somewhat on timeframe. At some point, the huge population bulge that is the babyboomers will start dying off and this will ease the pressures on both Social Security and Medicare. The Federal government screwed the pooch the minute they decided to spend the surpluses the system was generating and have left us where we are today.

Also, eventually, the babyboomers will quit delaying retirement and the job market may open up some. That, along with rising costs in places like China all are good things for the job outlook in the US EVENTUALLY.

IMO, life may not be all rosy for the Millenials for a while, but will get better as time goes on.

Class has nothing to do with income or worth.

(04-04-2014 10:40 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:31 AM)Hitch Wrote:  I think everyone on this board recognizes that the nature of the American middle class has forever changed over the past 30 years. And while we can (and do!) forever debate the causes for these changes, I can't help but wonder what the term will mean to the next generation of Americans.

The next generation may seriously question the ROI of college costs if the number of professional jobs can't absorb the number of graduates. Damaged personal credit and an inability to save for down payments will reduce home ownership. And unless something changes, the retirement savings rate will mean hardships and complete dependency on struggling programs like social security.

I may just be pessimistic, but I think things are bleak for the next generation of the middle class and based on recent studies of Millennials, that's going to come as quite a shock.

It depends somewhat on timeframe. At some point, the huge population bulge that is the babyboomers will start dying off and this will ease the pressures on both Social Security and Medicare. The Federal government screwed the pooch the minute they decided to spend the surpluses the system was generating and have left us where we are today.

Also, eventually, the babyboomers will quit delaying retirement and the job market may open up some. That, along with rising costs in places like China all are good things for the job outlook in the US EVENTUALLY.

IMO, life may not be all rosy for the Millenials for a while, but will get better as time goes on.

Out of curiosity, what generation are you? I'm a Millennial.

(04-04-2014 10:40 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Middle class will mean a net worth of $0 to -$50,000.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/13/retireme...-balances/

Quote:People on the verge of retirement, ages 55 to 64 years old, saw their nest eggs grow to an average balance of $165,200 from $143,300 in 2012, Fidelity said. Savers with both a 401(k) plan and Individual Retirement Account managed by Fidelity had larger nest eggs, with an average balance of $261,400, up from $225,600 in 2012.

Even a balance of $261,000 is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement. And many Americans are much more woefully unprepared for retirement. A 2013 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that nearly half of workers had less than $10,000 saved.

Exactly, and those ~50% will have long term debts like cars and houses which will put them into the negative net worth category.

It's ugly.

Lower class folks will literally just be debt slaves.

(04-04-2014 10:42 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:40 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:31 AM)Hitch Wrote:  I think everyone on this board recognizes that the nature of the American middle class has forever changed over the past 30 years. And while we can (and do!) forever debate the causes for these changes, I can't help but wonder what the term will mean to the next generation of Americans.

The next generation may seriously question the ROI of college costs if the number of professional jobs can't absorb the number of graduates. Damaged personal credit and an inability to save for down payments will reduce home ownership. And unless something changes, the retirement savings rate will mean hardships and complete dependency on struggling programs like social security.

I may just be pessimistic, but I think things are bleak for the next generation of the middle class and based on recent studies of Millennials, that's going to come as quite a shock.

It depends somewhat on timeframe. At some point, the huge population bulge that is the babyboomers will start dying off and this will ease the pressures on both Social Security and Medicare. The Federal government screwed the pooch the minute they decided to spend the surpluses the system was generating and have left us where we are today.

Also, eventually, the babyboomers will quit delaying retirement and the job market may open up some. That, along with rising costs in places like China all are good things for the job outlook in the US EVENTUALLY.

IMO, life may not be all rosy for the Millenials for a while, but will get better as time goes on.

Out of curiosity, what generation are you? I'm a Millennial.

I would be classified as babyboomer. Just don't wish too hard for an early retirement and then early death.

BTW, I have three children that are in your group.

(04-04-2014 10:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:40 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Middle class will mean a net worth of $0 to -$50,000.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/13/retireme...-balances/

Quote:People on the verge of retirement, ages 55 to 64 years old, saw their nest eggs grow to an average balance of $165,200 from $143,300 in 2012, Fidelity said. Savers with both a 401(k) plan and Individual Retirement Account managed by Fidelity had larger nest eggs, with an average balance of $261,400, up from $225,600 in 2012.

Even a balance of $261,000 is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement. And many Americans are much more woefully unprepared for retirement. A 2013 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that nearly half of workers had less than $10,000 saved.

Exactly, and those ~50% will have long term debts like cars and houses which will put them into the negative net worth category.

It's ugly.

Lower class folks will literally just be debt slaves.

Haven't they always been largely, just that? Ah, maybe just just lived in shacks.

(04-04-2014 10:49 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:40 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Middle class will mean a net worth of $0 to -$50,000.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/13/retireme...-balances/

Quote:People on the verge of retirement, ages 55 to 64 years old, saw their nest eggs grow to an average balance of $165,200 from $143,300 in 2012, Fidelity said. Savers with both a 401(k) plan and Individual Retirement Account managed by Fidelity had larger nest eggs, with an average balance of $261,400, up from $225,600 in 2012.

Even a balance of $261,000 is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement. And many Americans are much more woefully unprepared for retirement. A 2013 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that nearly half of workers had less than $10,000 saved.

Exactly, and those ~50% will have long term debts like cars and houses which will put them into the negative net worth category.

It's ugly.

Lower class folks will literally just be debt slaves.

Haven't they always been largely, just that? Ah, maybe just just lived in shacks.

I think lower class folks carried less in the way of debt back in the day.

In the days where everybody had a factory job I'd have assumed that the lower class would of merely had a net worth of next to nothing, but little in the way of crushing debt.

Today, even the poor have access to massive student debt, credit debt, housing debt, and all sorts of other forms of debt.

But that's just my opinion. I'd be interested to see some numbers.

IMO Middle class for many will probably mean living just above paycheck to paycheck. Most months able to save a tiny bit, but running into trouble if an unexpected expense comes up like a home or vehicle repair.

It really depends on what happens in the next decade or so.

(04-04-2014 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  IMO Middle class for many will probably mean living just above paycheck to paycheck. Most months able to save a tiny bit, but running into trouble if an unexpected expense comes up like a home or vehicle repair.

That's true even today. But that's because most people live at or beyond their means.

I think the real tell will be a change in lifestyle, but that's hard to describe. The 1980s-2006 saw a much grander lifestyle for the middle class, but it was based largely on borrowed money.

That lifestyle will be reined in, but to what extent? 1950s home sizes and luxuries? 1960s? 1970s?

I've often described how those eras were far more modest than today, even as mach and other liars complain that the middle class is getting squeezed.

The big question is, will the upcoming, moderated middle class still be financed through borrowing? Then we'll know that we're in a bad way.

(04-04-2014 10:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:40 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Middle class will mean a net worth of $0 to -$50,000.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/13/retireme...-balances/

Quote:People on the verge of retirement, ages 55 to 64 years old, saw their nest eggs grow to an average balance of $165,200 from $143,300 in 2012, Fidelity said. Savers with both a 401(k) plan and Individual Retirement Account managed by Fidelity had larger nest eggs, with an average balance of $261,400, up from $225,600 in 2012.

Even a balance of $261,000 is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement. And many Americans are much more woefully unprepared for retirement. A 2013 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that nearly half of workers had less than $10,000 saved.

Exactly, and those ~50% will have long term debts like cars and houses which will put them into the negative net worth category.

It's ugly.

Lower class folks will literally just be debt slaves.

Lunchtime thoughts!

You're not a slave if:

- You are voluntarily on welfare
- You ring up debt way past your means AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING
- You refuse to pay debts to buy other things
- You mentally don't care anymore
- You're a drug addict

There are a lot of people that fall into one of those categories written above. If you don't value money, then what does being ($35,000+) really mean to you? It means nothing - since you don't value what you owe OR the person that you gave you the money to begin with.

(04-04-2014 12:48 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:40 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Middle class will mean a net worth of $0 to -$50,000.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/13/retireme...-balances/

Quote:People on the verge of retirement, ages 55 to 64 years old, saw their nest eggs grow to an average balance of $165,200 from $143,300 in 2012, Fidelity said. Savers with both a 401(k) plan and Individual Retirement Account managed by Fidelity had larger nest eggs, with an average balance of $261,400, up from $225,600 in 2012.

Even a balance of $261,000 is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement. And many Americans are much more woefully unprepared for retirement. A 2013 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that nearly half of workers had less than $10,000 saved.

Exactly, and those ~50% will have long term debts like cars and houses which will put them into the negative net worth category.

It's ugly.

Lower class folks will literally just be debt slaves.

Lunchtime thoughts!

You're not a slave if:

- You are voluntarily on welfare
- You ring up debt way past your means AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING
- You refuse to pay debts to buy other things
- You mentally don't care anymore
- You're a drug addict

There are a lot of people that fall into one of those categories written above. If you don't value money, then what does being ($35,000+) really mean to you? It means nothing - since you don't value what you owe OR the person that you gave you the money to begin with.

When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.

(04-04-2014 12:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  IMO Middle class for many will probably mean living just above paycheck to paycheck. Most months able to save a tiny bit, but running into trouble if an unexpected expense comes up like a home or vehicle repair.

That's true even today. But that's because most people live at or beyond their means.

I think the real tell will be a change in lifestyle, but that's hard to describe. The 1980s-2006 saw a much grander lifestyle for the middle class, but it was based largely on borrowed money.

That lifestyle will be reined in, but to what extent? 1950s home sizes and luxuries? 1960s? 1970s?

I've often described how those eras were far more modest than today, even as mach and other liars complain that the middle class is getting squeezed.

The big question is, will the upcoming, moderated middle class still be financed through borrowing? Then we'll know that we're in a bad way.

Today's Middle class has more and nicer stuff and expects more and nicer stuff than middle class 35 years ago. Until there is a change in that mindset, the middle class will still borrow and live beyond their means.

35 years ago the middle class:
• one maybe two cars (most likely used) and people still worked on their own cars
• One tv for the whole family to share (maybe 19")
• kids shared bedrooms so even thought they had larger families they usually had a 3 or 4 bdrm house.
• home phone line (no cellphone for family members)
• no internet bills
• cable might've been available depending on where you lived
• Vacations were not an annual thing nor did families go to expensive locales (lots of people camped)
• clothes were not name brand (middle class wasn't buying or wanting to buy $250 Coach purses and $100 Air Jordans)
• most kids did not participate in expensive select sports/extra-curriculars
• people didn't eat out nearly as much

Savings can happen for today's middle class but lifestyles must change. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

(04-04-2014 08:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  IMO Middle class for many will probably mean living just above paycheck to paycheck. Most months able to save a tiny bit, but running into trouble if an unexpected expense comes up like a home or vehicle repair.

That's true even today. But that's because most people live at or beyond their means.

I think the real tell will be a change in lifestyle, but that's hard to describe. The 1980s-2006 saw a much grander lifestyle for the middle class, but it was based largely on borrowed money.

That lifestyle will be reined in, but to what extent? 1950s home sizes and luxuries? 1960s? 1970s?

I've often described how those eras were far more modest than today, even as mach and other liars complain that the middle class is getting squeezed.

The big question is, will the upcoming, moderated middle class still be financed through borrowing? Then we'll know that we're in a bad way.

Today's Middle class has more and nicer stuff and expects more and nicer stuff than middle class 35 years ago. Until there is a change in that mindset, the middle class will still borrow and live beyond their means.

35 years ago the middle class:
• one maybe two cars (most likely used) and people still worked on their own cars
• One tv for the whole family to share (maybe 19")
• kids shared bedrooms so even thought they had larger families they usually had a 3 or 4 bdrm house.
• home phone line (no cellphone for family members)
• no internet bills
• cable might've been available depending on where you lived
• Vacations were not an annual thing nor did families go to expensive locales (lots of people camped)
• clothes were not name brand (middle class wasn't buying or wanting to buy $250 Coach purses and $100 Air Jordans)
• most kids did not participate in expensive select sports/extra-curriculars
• people didn't eat out nearly as much

Savings can happen for today's middle class but lifestyles must change. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

At least one of those can't be helped. Working on your own car? That's getting tougher to do all the time. Cable? Nothing is on network television.

(04-04-2014 08:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  IMO Middle class for many will probably mean living just above paycheck to paycheck. Most months able to save a tiny bit, but running into trouble if an unexpected expense comes up like a home or vehicle repair.

That's true even today. But that's because most people live at or beyond their means.

I think the real tell will be a change in lifestyle, but that's hard to describe. The 1980s-2006 saw a much grander lifestyle for the middle class, but it was based largely on borrowed money.

That lifestyle will be reined in, but to what extent? 1950s home sizes and luxuries? 1960s? 1970s?

I've often described how those eras were far more modest than today, even as mach and other liars complain that the middle class is getting squeezed.

The big question is, will the upcoming, moderated middle class still be financed through borrowing? Then we'll know that we're in a bad way.

Today's Middle class has more and nicer stuff and expects more and nicer stuff than middle class 35 years ago. Until there is a change in that mindset, the middle class will still borrow and live beyond their means.

35 years ago the middle class:
• one maybe two cars (most likely used) and people still worked on their own cars
• One tv for the whole family to share (maybe 19")
• kids shared bedrooms so even thought they had larger families they usually had a 3 or 4 bdrm house.
• home phone line (no cellphone for family members)
• no internet bills
• cable might've been available depending on where you lived
• Vacations were not an annual thing nor did families go to expensive locales (lots of people camped)
• clothes were not name brand (middle class wasn't buying or wanting to buy $250 Coach purses and $100 Air Jordans)
• most kids did not participate in expensive select sports/extra-curriculars
• people didn't eat out nearly as much

Savings can happen for today's middle class but lifestyles must change. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

And now, the 2014 middle class:

• Both parents have new cars, each kid drives a used car
• TV's for every bedroom
• Gotta have a gym membership
• TV's for every bedroom
• Separate bedrooms for all children
• $200 dollar cell phones and massive family plan
• Everyone in the family needs a laptop
• $70 high speed cable internet
• $80 a month for 200 channels you don't watch
• Let's go cruising for a week!
• Oh, you don't have a skiboat? You must be poor (apparently a bass fish boat isn't good enough, it has to have a wake tower and V8 engine)
• North Face, Columbia, Oakley, Jordan, Nike, Underarmor, etc to infinity.
• Cars loaded with entertainment systems, heated seats, rear view cameras, etc.
• Every extracurricular (sports, clubs, youth group, band) requires a monetary investment at some point
• 50% or more of college paid for by Parent (PLUS) student loans
• Continued financial support past college graduation

I graduated high school in '07, and this is the impression I got from other middle class folks in north Idaho. There is so much pressure from the media and peers to "live the dream". People end up buying an identity through clothes like North Face, American Eagle, Quicksilver, Fox, or whatever. Even people who think they are non-conformist end up spending the same amount of money, on different clothes, at stores owned by the same corporations. It all ends up going on super easy to open store specific credit cards. It's also not good enough that you have the XLT Ford F-150. The kid with the King Ranch is cooler and his parents are cooler (in the eyes of a teenager).

Seriously though, my entire generation runs on brands. I remember reading a study that found that people wearing name brand clothes are automatically trusted more than people identical clothes without the brand logo.

(04-04-2014 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  IMO Middle class for many will probably mean living just above paycheck to paycheck. Most months able to save a tiny bit, but running into trouble if an unexpected expense comes up like a home or vehicle repair.

I can agree with this. It's sad that as a young person I sometimes wonder if my most financially "well off" days are behind me.

(04-05-2014 12:27 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 08:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  IMO Middle class for many will probably mean living just above paycheck to paycheck. Most months able to save a tiny bit, but running into trouble if an unexpected expense comes up like a home or vehicle repair.

That's true even today. But that's because most people live at or beyond their means.

I think the real tell will be a change in lifestyle, but that's hard to describe. The 1980s-2006 saw a much grander lifestyle for the middle class, but it was based largely on borrowed money.

That lifestyle will be reined in, but to what extent? 1950s home sizes and luxuries? 1960s? 1970s?

I've often described how those eras were far more modest than today, even as mach and other liars complain that the middle class is getting squeezed.

The big question is, will the upcoming, moderated middle class still be financed through borrowing? Then we'll know that we're in a bad way.

Today's Middle class has more and nicer stuff and expects more and nicer stuff than middle class 35 years ago. Until there is a change in that mindset, the middle class will still borrow and live beyond their means.

35 years ago the middle class:
• one maybe two cars (most likely used) and people still worked on their own cars
• One tv for the whole family to share (maybe 19")
• kids shared bedrooms so even thought they had larger families they usually had a 3 or 4 bdrm house.
• home phone line (no cellphone for family members)
• no internet bills
• cable might've been available depending on where you lived
• Vacations were not an annual thing nor did families go to expensive locales (lots of people camped)
• clothes were not name brand (middle class wasn't buying or wanting to buy $250 Coach purses and $100 Air Jordans)
• most kids did not participate in expensive select sports/extra-curriculars
• people didn't eat out nearly as much

Savings can happen for today's middle class but lifestyles must change. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

And now, the 2014 middle class:

• Both parents have new cars, each kid drives a used car
• TV's for every bedroom
• Gotta have a gym membership
• TV's for every bedroom
• Separate bedrooms for all children
• $200 dollar cell phones and massive family plan
• Everyone in the family needs a laptop
• $70 high speed cable internet
• $80 a month for 200 channels you don't watch
• Let's go cruising for a week!
• Oh, you don't have a skiboat? You must be poor (apparently a bass fish boat isn't good enough, it has to have a wake tower and V8 engine)
• North Face, Columbia, Oakley, Jordan, Nike, Underarmor, etc to infinity.
• Cars loaded with entertainment systems, heated seats, rear view cameras, etc.
• Every extracurricular (sports, clubs, youth group, band) requires a monetary investment at some point
• 50% or more of college paid for by Parent (PLUS) student loans
• Continued financial support past college graduation

I graduated high school in '07, and this is the impression I got from other middle class folks in north Idaho. There is so much pressure from the media and peers to "live the dream". People end up buying an identity through clothes like North Face, American Eagle, Quicksilver, Fox, or whatever. Even people who think they are non-conformist end up spending the same amount of money, on different clothes, at stores owned by the same corporations. It all ends up going on super easy to open store specific credit cards. It's also not good enough that you have the XLT Ford F-150. The kid with the King Ranch is cooler and his parents are cooler (in the eyes of a teenager).

Seriously though, my entire generation runs on brands. I remember reading a study that found that people wearing name brand clothes are automatically trusted more than people identical clothes without the brand logo.

Unless people reevaluate and scale back they will remain slaves to credit their whole lives but I don't see it happening anytime soon.