WDYT? Top ten percent of households (income)

[Wildcat]

:iagree:   I think people don't like to use the term lower class because somehow they think it is equivalent to being "low class" which it doesn't.  

 

I agree. "Lower income" is more appropriate, but then what is "middle income"? And what are "lower" and "middle" compared to?

 

I always hated the term "lower class" even though it's more of an abbreviation for "a lower class of INCOME". It just has a negative connotation associated with it.

[Tanaqui]

All that is true, except that lots of middle class people do have choices.  Having choices about where you live and how your kids are educated is not "elite."

 

 

Except that's not true. Lots of people don't have those levels of choices, not really. You think that because you have them, but that's not the reality for a huge portion of the country.

 

Everyone I know, rich or poor, has a refrigerator, stove, and microwave, and I'm guessing the majority of families have a washer, dryer, and dishwasher.

 

Nobody I know has a dishwasher. Most of them don't have a dryer. A good number don't have a washing machine in their homes.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/25/1091501/top-romney-adviser-if-you-own-a-microwave-you-arent-really-poor/

[Χά�ων]

Sounds like you are including everyone who isn't destitute. What does the "middle" in "middle class" mean if everyone who isn't starving is included?

 

Except I pulled examples of people I know irl. People who by sheer luck, have a place to call home. I know people who cannot afford anything but beans and rice and I know people who only go to the thrift stores and buy from the days deals and rarely more than a piece or two at a time. But they make too much money to qualify for any type of assistance. I would like to think that if a family makes too much to qualify for any government help then they are middle class and able to have the luxery of not worrying about where the next meal will come from, KWIM?

 

Forgive types, on phone

[idnib]

. 

 

[catz]

I think she just meant that a small family can live on less money than a larger family can. Kids are expensive, even if you're frugal, so if my family and yours had the exact same annual income, my family would have a lot more money left over after we paid for the basics, simply by virtue of a family of three being less expensive to support than a family of 12.

 

Exactly, no jab meant at all. All I meant was nothing I said in my original post would be the same with a considerably larger family size.  There probably wouldn't be music lessons and college fund for every kid.  We'd have a smaller emergency fund and crises buying of appliances might involve financing.   We'd have a much smaller disposable income.  And really that's what this seems to be the crux of this discussion.  Having a disposable income and safety net after necessities are covered.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

When I hung out in the ghetto, it was more common for people to NOT have working fridges, stoves, plumbing, microwaves, etc. than it was for people to have them.

 

Also, we lived in the Appalachian mountains during middle and high school (90's) and that's where some of my family still lives- and plenty of those people don't have those things either.

 

I was appalled at the condition of the homes of some of my school friends. And housing is extremely cheap there! My mom bought a brand spanking new house for $100K!

 

It's a completely different world than the world I currently live in.

 

But I dunno- some of those people who don't have working plumbing and/or appliances have smart phones and cable, and gaming systems... So... I dunno.

 

I think, across the board, people's ideas of necessity vs. luxury, want vs. need are... different.

 

I may take 2-3 vacations a year and grocery shop at Whole Foods- but we don't have smart phones or any kind of cell plan. We have $20 flip phones and pay as you go T-Mobile. I maybe spend $50 a year on it. And it would be the first thing to go if I needed to cut back.

 

There are a lot of things that people who make less than us have/pay for that we "can't afford" because our priorities are different.

[SKL]

Except that's not true. Lots of people don't have those levels of choices, not really. You think that because you have them, but that's not the reality for a huge portion of the country.

 

 

Nobody I know has a dishwasher. Most of them don't have a dryer. A good number don't have a washing machine in their homes.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/25/1091501/top-romney-adviser-if-you-own-a-microwave-you-arent-really-poor/

 

I'm not sure what statistic you wanted me to look at in your link.  I didn't see where it tells what % of US families have which appliances.

 

I am aware there are lots of people, especially low-income people, who have to use a laundromat to wash their clothes.  However, we were talking about "middle class."  Not poor / low-income people.

[Laura Corin]

There often seems to be a visible prejudice on this forum toward those who are financially secure. I am surprised you haven't noticed it. 

 

I'm sorry that you feel like this.  

 

For most of my married life - so that includes most of the thirteen years that I have been on these forums - we have been very comfortably off.  I have met with nothing but appreciation of the things that we have been able to do (I remember hesitating about describing the trip that I took each of my boys on to Italy when they were younger, but I received nothing but kind interest).  

 

And when things did get hard - when Husband lost his job in his mid-fifties and it took him three years to start to build the portfolio of consulting that he now has - much sympathy was expressed to me, even though financially we weren't in anything like the dire straits that we would have been in without those comfortable years.  I appreciated the support very, very much.

 

L

[Murphy101]

Except that's not true. Lots of people don't have those levels of choices, not really. You think that because you have them, but that's not the reality for a huge portion of the country.

 

 

Nobody I know has a dishwasher. Most of them don't have a dryer. A good number don't have a washing machine in their homes.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/25/1091501/top-romney-adviser-if-you-own-a-microwave-you-arent-really-poor/

I don't have a microwave. Haven't in years.

I know many without dishwashers.

I know many who have a broken appliance and they can't replace it. They just have to get by without it.

 

Does anyone watch The Middle? We laughed about the broken sink episodes. We once had to go 2 and a half weeks without a kitchen sink bc we couldn't afford to fix it. It was funny in a not so funny way. And there was the time we went 3 months without replacing our flooded carpet bc the amount the insurance gave was not enough to buy new carpet, so we just ripped it out and threw it away and I let the kids use chalk on the cement floors if they wanted too. (They were really bummed when we got carpet.) Eventually my awesome dh managed to snag a great deal and we got carpet, but we were not going to go into debt and make our family sacrifice in other ways just for socially acceptable flooring. Most people we knew just sort of laughed about it bc they had or were in the same boat. But there were others in higher incomes we didn't really talk to about it bc to them this was scary and awful and meant we needed charity. Nope. Just normal life for lower middle class people. Sorry it's not pretty.

[SKL]

Appliance ownership not "elite":  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs

 

Here are the percentages of households below the poverty level that the Census Bureau estimates had the following appliances:

Clothes washer: 68.7%

Clothes dryer: 65.3%

Dish washer: 44.9%

Refrigerator: 97.8%

Food freezer: 26.2%

Stove: 96.6%

Microwave: 93.2%

Air conditioner: 83.4%

Television: 96.1%

Video recorder/DVD: 83.2%

Computer: 58.2%

Telephone (landline): 54.9%

Cell phone: 80.9%

 

More than 60% of American families have dishwashers: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/residential/appliances/dishwashers.html

[Tanaqui]

 

I am aware there are lots of people, especially low-income people, who have to use a laundromat to wash their clothes.  However, we were talking about "middle class."  Not poor / low-income people.

 

Many of those people are "middle class". They are, economically, in the middle of the pack. That was just the only link I could find that was even tangentially relevant.

 

So long as you keep saying that these are things that the middle class has universally*, I'm going to keep saying that you, and everybody with those views, are completely out of touch.

 

Catwoman thought it was her income level that made me say her perspective is skewed. Her income level is what's skewing her perspective, but it's the attitudes she has about what's normal that made me say it.

 

* Excepting fridges. Though as point of fact, I know people who are living in a shelter, a motel, or a room-in-a-house who don't have more than a small space in the fridge and a hotplate. Those people really are past the poverty line, though.

[Χά�ων]

I'm not sure what statistic you wanted me to look at in your link.  I didn't see where it tells what % of US families have which appliances.

 

I am aware there are lots of people, especially low-income people, who have to use a laundromat to wash their clothes.  However, we were talking about "middle class."  Not poor / low-income people.

I think so of the confusion is that there are people who are viewed as middle class who are falling into these groupings. Including using a laundry mat to wash and dry clothing because they cannot afford to buy or replace a washing machine. Sometimes I think we all fall into the trap of assuming everyone is on the same level playing field. I am thinking of a friend who has a washing machine and dryer in her house. Neither work and she either brings clothes here once a week or drags them to the laundry mat. But anyone who visits will see a washer and dryer, most are not going to check and see if they are working or not. Same with so many things. Appearances can be deceiving. The expectation that one keeps up with others is very socially ingrained so appearing to have less is not something many do willingly.

 

Another example would be my best friend growing up. They were a house of 5-9 kids (step and young adult children in and out). They had a washing machine and dryer. Mom still packed everything up and went to the laundry mat every week. Where she sat and read while waiting. That was "Mom's Time" when she got to enjoy time for herself. Could she have done the laundry at home? Sure. Would she have been able to sit down and read and not be bothered? Nope.  

[Danestress]

A few questions about "household income" figures.  Do these numbers include retired people?  If so, that will skew results because many comfortable retired people are living off part principal and part income from investments.  So if a retired couple is earning $20 a year on investments, receives social security, has a mortgage paid off, no kids at home, has savings for big expenses, receives Medicare etc, they would look like part of the "poor" in a piechart, while they may in fact be living pretty well.   Obviously not all retired people are comfortable, but enough are at least that comfortable that it would change how these statistics look.  And because is is addressing the "share" of tax revenue paid by various groups, it may be even more misleading. 

 

Do they count friends living together as a "household?"  I doubt it since they are not filing joint taxes, but they may be living with much lower costs if three friends earning $30 each live together in one three bedroom apartment.

 

Do government benefits count as income?  How about matching 401K contributions made by employers?  How about gifts from parents?  I think $14,000 a year can be gifted tax free.  That means that (if I am right about exact amount), a woman's well off parents can, as part of their estate plan, give her $28,000 a year (half from Mom, half from Dad) and also give her husband the same.  And that would not look like "income" to either of them, and I don't think it even gets reported on the recipient's taxes.   Lucky people, right?  And there are literally trillions of dollars (how many trillion is debated) that will pass by inheritance to people who are currently middle aged in the next decades.  The estate pays any taxes, which might reduce what beneficiaries inherit, but won't show up as taxes they paid.  

 

So while I do look at graphs like this and think,  "dang, it doesn't take that much to be in the top 10%, which means a vast majority of people are really struggling on significantly less," I am not sure I trust the figures to give a real picture of how that looks across millions of households.  It's interesting, but I am not sure it gives enough information.

[SKL]

Many of those people are "middle class". They are, economically, in the middle of the pack. That was just the only link I could find that was even tangentially relevant.

 

So long as you keep saying that these are things that the middle class has universally*, I'm going to keep saying that you, and everybody with those views, are completely out of touch.

 

Catwoman thought it was her income level that made me say her perspective is skewed. Her income level is what's skewing her perspective, but it's the attitudes she has about what's normal that made me say it.

 

* Excepting fridges. Though as point of fact, I know people who are living in a shelter, a motel, or a room-in-a-house who don't have more than a small space in the fridge and a hotplate. Those people really are past the poverty line, though.

 

I never said these are things the middle class has universally.  I'm saying there's nobody I know who doesn't have a fridge, stove, and microwave.  And the majority of US families have the other three (non-essential) appliances I mentioned.

 

If you know families near median income who do not have a stove to cook on, what is the reason for that?  There has to be a reason, because "middle class incomes don't cover luxuries like stoves" isn't going to fly.

 

I've had times when I didn't have running water, electricity, various working appliances, but there was always a reason other than income, and the problem was temporary.  Granted, I bought a used, non-matching washer/dryer for my first non-efficiency apartment.  But I had just finished my education and I wasn't a "family."

 

[Χά�ων]

This is so trivial, lol- BUT- Disney is only $100 per person/per day if you go for one day. The longer you go, the cheaper it is.

 

We are going in May, and 8 day tickets are around $350 a person (don't remember exactly).

 

And, we are staying offsite in a condo- only $99 a night! And we're splitting it with my mom and aunt who are coming with us, so we're only paying $376 for 12 nights.

 

(www.floridasunvacationhomes.com)

 

Again, I know this is *so* trivial compared to what this thread is talking about. I'm sorry!!

 

But you can take your kids to Disney on the cheap :) Every kid should get to go to DIsney :)

 

There are lots of us Disney junkies on here that could help you with that ;)

Except it is not that cheap. You are forgetting to include food and travel to the destination and lost income for those who do not have paid time off. 12 nights plus 2 nights for travel is two weeks. Without paid time off that two weeks is a HUGE chunk of change on top of the $376. Is it still affordable once you add in food and half a months salary? For many, no it is not. 

 

FTR My son hates Disney. I had a chance to take him, he was dismayed at the thought.

[Frances]

I think no one wants to really discuss this bc it seems overwhelming and depressing and hopeless.

 

But it isn't. Yet.

 

But it will be if it isn't dealt with.

I disagree that no one wants to discuss the growing income inequality in the US. As I stated earlier, I think recognition that it is a problem has far more to do with one's political views than one's economic position. In my circle of friends and neighbors and coworkers, many of whom would fall in the upper 10% based on income, it is a frequent topic of conversation. The only people I know personally who do not think it is a problem are conservative politically. Maybe it's too political to discuss, but I would be interested in hearing what others think are possible solutions to the problem.

[Χά�ων]

I don't have a microwave. Haven't in years.

I know many without dishwashers.

I know many who have a broken appliance and they can't replace it. They just have to get by without it.

 

Does anyone watch The Middle? We laughed about the broken sink episodes. We once had to go 2 and a half weeks without a kitchen sink bc we couldn't afford to fix it. It was funny in a not so funny way. And there was the time we went 3 months without replacing our flooded carpet bc the amount the insurance gave was not enough to buy new carpet, so we just ripped it out and threw it away and I let the kids use chalk on the cement floors if they wanted too. (They were really bummed when we got carpet.) Eventually my awesome dh managed to snag a great deal and we got carpet, but we were not going to go into debt and make our family sacrifice in other ways just for socially acceptable flooring. Most people we knew just sort of laughed about it bc they had or were in the same boat. But there were others in higher incomes we didn't really talk to about it bc to them this was scary and awful and meant we needed charity. Nope. Just normal life for lower middle class people. Sorry it's not pretty.

Rollerskating is another fun activity to do on cement floors. My son was sad when I got carpet...

[SKL]

5

Sometimes I think we all fall into the trap of assuming everyone is on the same level playing field.  

 

I disagree.  I didn't see that implication anywhere.  I was arguing against the implication that the ability to buy appliances makes one elite, not middle class.  Most middle class Americans have working appliances.  I'm not sure how that can even be a controversial statement.

[Tanaqui]

I think so of the confusion is that there are people who are viewed as middle class who are falling into these groupings. Including using a laundry mat to wash and dry clothing because they cannot afford to buy or replace a washing machine. Sometimes I think we all fall into the trap of assuming everyone is on the same level playing field. I am thinking of a friend who has a washing machine and dryer in her house. Neither work and she either brings clothes here once a week or drags them to the laundry mat. But anyone who visits will see a washer and dryer, most are not going to check and see if they are working or not. Same with so many things. Appearances can be deceiving. The expectation that one keeps up with others is very socially ingrained so appearing to have less is not something many do willingly.

 

And if I had to guess, I would say that many of those people who have washers and dryers for their household do not, as point of fact, own their own homes. They rent, and their landlord provides access to same as part of the rent.

 

I wonder, really, if perhaps the numbers for poverty line "don't have to use laundromat" and middle class "don't have to use laundromat" are closer than you might think if you just assumed an upward trajectory.

 

If you know families near median income who do not have a stove to cook on, what is the reason for that?  There has to be a reason, because "middle class incomes don't cover luxuries like stoves" isn't going to fly.

 

I already said those people living off hotplates are at the poverty line. Although, interestingly, it's historically rather wealthy conservative pundits and politicians who like to claim that fridges and stoves are luxuries, much to the merriment of all.

 

[Murphy101]

Appliance ownership not "elite": http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs

 

Here are the percentages of households below the poverty level that the Census Bureau estimates had the following appliances:

Clothes washer: 68.7%

Clothes dryer: 65.3%

Dish washer: 44.9%

Refrigerator: 97.8%

Food freezer: 26.2%

Stove: 96.6%

Microwave: 93.2%

Air conditioner: 83.4%

Television: 96.1%

Video recorder/DVD: 83.2%

Computer: 58.2%

Telephone (landline): 54.9%

Cell phone: 80.9%

 

More than 60% of American families have dishwashers: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/residential/appliances/dishwashers.html

I don't recall anyone ever saying that just having those things makes someone elite? What was said was that being able to REPLACE 4 of them without suffering stress is elite. I stand by that.

 

But moving on to talk about those numbers...

 

Gov't assistance helps with many of those numbers. Personally I don't think anyone who needs gov't assistance for something basic should be classified as middle class or elite.

 

You can get a landline for free or a very low amt a month if your income is low enough. Similiar program for cell phones and Internet Why? Because in our society is widely accepted you can't fully participate in getting jobs and society without them. And I completely agree with it.

 

Also, many of those things are not owned by them or don't work.

 

For example, if the school sends a computer, there's a computer in the house. But it may or may not function very well and it doesn't belong to them. They don't get to keep it over the summer or upgrade it or anything.

 

And lastly... How the survey was taken matters. A homeless family living out of a hotel might have a mini microwave, frig, and hot plate and a laundry down the hall they can use and qualify as "having these appliances".

[Χά�ων]

I disagree that no one wants to discuss the growing income inequality in the US. As I stated earlier, I think recognition that it is a problem has far more to do with one's political views than one's economic position. In my circle of friends and neighbors and coworkers, many of whom would fall in the upper 10% based on income, it is a frequent topic of conversation. The only people I know personally who do not think it is a problem are conservative politically. Maybe it's too political to discuss, but I would be interested in hearing what others think are possible solutions to the problem.

Healthcare. BUT my son has extreme medical needs and expenses that would drastically affect my ability to earn more income. There is a large gap between medicaid and affording his medical expenses and if I went back to work now I would fall in that gap and my debt would grow and I would be trapped in an endless cycle. I will fully admit that I have a much different situation that most other people. My situation is just that, my situation. Everyone else is different and I am not going to even pretend to be able to offer a solution for everyone else. 

[*lifeoftheparty*]

Except it is not that cheap. You are forgetting to include food and travel to the destination and lost income for those who do not have paid time off. 12 nights plus 2 nights for travel is two weeks. Without paid time off that two weeks is a HUGE chunk of change on top of the $376. Is it still affordable once you add in food and half a months salary? For many, no it is not.

 

FTR My son hates Disney. I had a chance to take him, he was dismayed at the thought.

Well, you don't have to stay for 12 nights.

 

But you can work it out to be cheaper than what most people think it will cost. I was just throwing it out there.

 

I have a friend who was sad because they had a great time at Disney, but since they had 5 kids and would need two hotel rooms, they couldn't afford to go again.

 

When I told her about the condos, she realized they could, and they were excited.

 

Just throwing it out there...

 

But yes, I often do forget that not everyone gets paid time off. We went straight from military to government work, so DH has always had 21 to 30 days off paid time off, plus use or lose time. thats just our normal because we've not known different in our adult lives.

 

I need to remember to keep that in perspective.

 

I often wish we were a little more luke the Europeans... don't they all get paid vacation time?

[Murphy101]

Healthcare. BUT my son has extreme medical needs and expenses that would drastically affect my ability to earn more income. There is a large gap between medicaid and affording his medical expenses and if I went back to work now I would fall in that gap and my debt would grow and I would be trapped in an endless cycle. I will fully admit that I have a much different situation that most other people. My situation is just that, my situation. Everyone else is different and I am not going to even pretend to be able to offer a solution for everyone else.

I don't think it takes extreme medical conditions to affect it.

 

Type 1 diabetis is expensive. There was a story last week I think about a 36 year old man who died after four days of trying to get his insulin expired rx filled and couldn't get it.

 

All medical becomes extreme when you can't afford it.

[Catwoman]

Many of those people are "middle class". They are, economically, in the middle of the pack. That was just the only link I could find that was even tangentially relevant.

 

So long as you keep saying that these are things that the middle class has universally*, I'm going to keep saying that you, and everybody with those views, are completely out of touch.

 

Catwoman thought it was her income level that made me say her perspective is skewed. Her income level is what's skewing her perspective, but it's the attitudes she has about what's normal that made me say it.

 

* Excepting fridges. Though as point of fact, I know people who are living in a shelter, a motel, or a room-in-a-house who don't have more than a small space in the fridge and a hotplate. Those people really are past the poverty line, though.

Have you considered that your perspective about what is "normal" is equally skewed by your own personal situation?

 

Every single one of us has a "skewed" opinion about what is "normal."

 

This thread was about whether or not an annual family income is "elite," but you seem to be insisting on focusing on very low income families.

[idnib]

.

[Jane in NC]

The appliance discussions are strange to someone from the SF area, which has a lot of expensive but also older buildings and units with small kitchens.

 

$4250/month, 1 BR, no dishwasher, no laundry, parking extra

 

$2900/month, 1 BR, no dishwasher, coin laundry in building, parking extra

 

$3600/month, 1 BR, no dishwasher, no laundry

 

And yes, it's a bit silly as these are considered fabulous apartments for people with lots of money and will have a lot of competition from potential tenants. I'm just pointing out that appliances are not the end-all of the poverty debate. Someone I know just bought a place for ~$800k with no dishwasher.

 

You posted as I was contemplating the irony of appliances as a metric.  People I know without dishwashers either own expensive apartments in Manhattan or live in trailers (manufactured housing--whatever it is called these days).  Two extremes.

 

Of course, having a dishwasher and having a dishwasher that works properly are also two different things.  Not all rental units come with efficient appliances.

 

[SKL]

I don't recall anyone ever saying that just having those things makes someone elite? What was said was that being able to REPLACE 4 of them without suffering stress is elite. I stand by that.

 

Depends on whether it was planned for.  Usually when someone buys multiple appliances at once, it's either because they are moving or they have planned a kitchen remodel, which usually means money has been set aside over time.  It can also mean that the family decided to go into debt for the upgrade.

 

That said, the tables posted earlier agree with my concept of what "middle class" is.  Even the old 1984 charts include $150,000 in "middle class."  A family making that much money is likely to be able to put four kitchen appliances on their credit card and pay it off reasonably soon.  My last 4 major appliances (3 of which were larger than average size) totaled $2,100.  (I don't count the microwave since you can get one for under $50 nowadays.)

[73349]

The other matter with appliances is whether you can pay your electric bill consistently and be sure you can use them on any given day. IMO "middle class" includes taking for granted electricity and running water--nowadays probably internet as well--unless one has been spending rather irresponsibly.

 

Re: dishwashers, they are a norm in middle-class housing here, but keep in mind that the majority of housing here less than 30 years old.

 

I think of "working class" as the group between minimum wage (which is currently a poverty wage for all but perhaps a single person in a low-COL area) and the middle class--people who by and large finished high school and have steady employment, mostly able to pay the bills but likely to be in debt and/or relying on some kind of help and/or doing without something when faced with a crisis. Downward mobility is a constant risk.

 

 

[SKL]

Dishwashers aren't considered a normal item though, are they ? I consider a dishwasher a 'luxury' item, in that it's a non-essential.

 

Yes, the inclusion of dishwashers is clouding the discussion a bit, because you can live a pleasant life without one.  I have one but rarely use it.

 

But it is true that in the USA, the majority of families do have a dishwasher.  So while it is certainly a non-essential, it is hardly a marker of an "elite" lifestyle here.

 

[Pawz4me]

Many of those people are "middle class". They are, economically, in the middle of the pack. That was just the only link I could find that was even tangentially relevant.

 

So long as you keep saying that these are things that the middle class has universally*, I'm going to keep saying that you, and everybody with those views, are completely out of touch.

 

Catwoman thought it was her income level that made me say her perspective is skewed. Her income level is what's skewing her perspective, but it's the attitudes she has about what's normal that made me say it.

 

* Excepting fridges. Though as point of fact, I know people who are living in a shelter, a motel, or a room-in-a-house who don't have more than a small space in the fridge and a hotplate. Those people really are past the poverty line, though.

 

Said gently -- Have you considered that your view of and attitude about what constitutes middle class is also skewed?  As has been repeatedly said, there is no universally accepted definition.

[Paige]

Dishwashers aren't considered a normal item though, are they ? I consider a dishwasher a 'luxury' item, in that it's a non-essential.

 

They are considered normal to me. I understand they aren't needed, and I've lived in homes without them, but I've never seen a new home or apartment built without one. Even inexpensive new homes will be built with a dishwasher in mind. The only homes I've seen without dishwashers are very old. I would consider it abnormal to not have one and I would be a little sad.

 

Our family is not in the 10% elite, but we aren't too far below. I definitely consider myself privileged. We don't have a lavish lifestyle, but I know people who are truly poor. I know people who cannot heat their homes, or have homes that are missing boards in the floor. I compare myself to them and think I am so incredibly blessed that we don't worry about feeding our kids or keeping them warm. I am so fortunate that I don't have to worry about the gas money if I want to take my kids to a local attraction or park, or even church. I have wealthy family members too, but I don't compare myself to them and feel lacking. Sure- they are more elite than us, but we are still pretty elite. IMO, being able to afford normal luxuries like dishwashers, a summer trip, and some extracurriculars is elite, because not everyone can afford "normal." 

 

FWIW, the very wealthy people I know are all incredibly generous and gracious and I strive to model them at our own more modest income. 

[Catwoman]

Dishwashers aren't considered a normal item though, are they ? I consider a dishwasher a 'luxury' item, in that it's a non-essential.

You can buy a dishwasher for around $200 in the United States if it's on sale. Obviously, you can also pay a lot more, but the basic models are quite inexpensive.

 

So yes, dishwashers are considered a normal item. Sometimes people don't have room for them in their kitchens, though, and others simply don't care about having one, but they aren't super-expensive to purchase.

 

Of course, now someone will post that middle class families can't afford a $200 dishwasher... ;) But to answer your question, it is very "normal" to have a dishwasher.

[SKL]

My sister lives in a very old trailer in the Boonedocks.  Her trailer came equipped with a dishwasher.  She can't use it because the water is so bad, but she has one.  Same with her washing machine (though she can use it for washing dog stuff).  She takes her clothes to my mom's to be laundered.

 

So yeah, in places where space itself is not a luxury, a dishwasher is pretty standard.

[Χά�ων]

Thanks :)

 

It's funny the difference between people who think $200 is cheap and people who think $200 ? Ain't gonna happen.

 

It's funny old world, isn't it ?

Yep. $200 is not a small amount and nothing to sneeze at. 

[SKL]

Thanks :)

 

It's funny the difference between people who think $200 is cheap and people who think $200 ? Ain't gonna happen.

 

It's funny old world, isn't it ?

 

Thing is, that is something most people can save up for over time, if it is important to them.  The average smoker spends about $1,800 per year on cigarettes.  The average American household spends over $400 per year on alcohol.  Truth be told, most of us spend more than $200 on nonessential stuff we probably wouldn't even miss if we set it aside.

 

Of course there are some people who are unable to do even that, but % of Americans in that category is small and unlikely to be "middle class."

[Laura Corin]

 

I often wish we were a little more luke the Europeans... don't they all get paid vacation time?

 

In theory you get it by law in the UK.  However, contract workers don't have the same protection (they often count as self-employed), and there are more and more of those.

 

For full time workers it's a minimum of 5.6 weeks of paid holiday (normally including national holidays).  My company shuts for two weeks at Christmas (the factory closes down and so do the offices) and I have another nineteen days to use.

[eternalsummer]

...This person also put forth the opinion that there was a "good" part of the Hamptons and, I suppose, a "not good" part, but really, what do you expect from a conversation like this?

 

That school was when I first formulated the belief that people over a certain income level are a wee bit clueless when it comes to reality, and thus far, that idea has rarely steered me wrong. 

 

But here is the thing: there is a "good" part of our fairly nice suburb and a "not good" part - the "not good" part being largely rental housing and some subsidized (section 8) housing.  There's also a "good" part of the city (Kansas City) as a whole and a "not good" part - surely you'd agree there's probably a "not good" part of Kansas City.

 

But would someone living in the not good part of Kansas City really think there's a not good part of Lee's Summit (a fairly wealthy suburb)?  Probably not.

 

And would someone living in subsaharan africa, or the poor parts of new delhi, really think any part of Kansas City, where 99% of people having running water, electricity, free food, etc., is "not good"? The weight problem with the poor in America is *obesity*!  

 

It is all relative; privileging your perspective (the Hamptons can't have a not good part but a middle-class suburb can, and certainly a large city can) is just that, your perspective.  It's fine as long as you recognize it as such.

[Laura Corin]

Doesn't it cost more to run one than to just do the dishes though, even if one can afford the initial cost? 

 

 

Dishwashers are actually very efficient in the way that they use and reuse heat and water.

[StaceyinLA]

I believe it certainly could be accurate statistically. However, we are above that level and in a low cost of living state and I wouldn't call our lifestyle anywhere near extravagant. We may be in the top 10%, but we are nowhere near the "elite."

[Laura Corin]

That's interesting. Energy-efficient stuff (A or A+ category) is generally much more expensive though. 

 

Yes - it's generally newer models.  It's pretty hard to find the inefficient models in the UK these days - some have been removed from sale due to EU regulations.

[regentrude]

Doesn't it cost more to run one than to just do the dishes though, even if one can afford the initial cost? 

 

(I've never used one. We live in Europe in a country where you pay a flat monthly rate for water. So here, I'd imagine that the electricity a dishwasher uses costs more than just using water, which is heated by a boiler so uses electricity as well, but probably less. I don't know how dishwashers actually work though. I think washing machines use cold water which they then heat internally. Do dishwasher do that too? Here's one thing I do know: the cheaper dishwashers are smaller, so you'd have to run them more often.)

 

If you search online, there are many sites where people attempt to compare cost between hand washing dishes and using a dish washer. There is no clear cut answer, because it depends on how efficient the hand washer is using the hot water (basin vs runnig water, etc). Modern dishwashers are efficient and use little water. Then of course there are differences in the dishwasher use - after each meal vs only when absolutely full.

In the US, water is billed by quantity - no flat fee (unless you rent and it is included).

 

I looked at the analysis for when we lived in Germany and was surprised that the dishwasher used less hot water than hand washing, which, in a country with much higher water and electricity prices than the US, was important.

 

Dishwashers heat the water internally via a heating spiral. It's a fairly efficient way of heating water.

Washing machines - it differs. In Europe, they heat the water and can actually wash on hot (up to 95 C). In the US, they are hooked up to the hot water system and can only use water of the temperature provided by the water heater, so the "hot" setting is a misnomer.

[regentrude]

So the water heating process is more efficient in most dishwashers than it is inside an electric boiler?

 

Again, that depends on the boiler. The most efficient electric one is a boiler that heats the water on demand when it is flowing through, because then you have no heat loss. Boilers that store hot water for later use always have the issue of heat loss, you need good insulation.

 

 

I'd guess Germany tends to use gas to heat water, right?

 

In Germany, it varies; houses that heat with gas often have the hot water boiler gas heated as well, but in others, water is heated electrically. In our house here in the US, we heat with gas, but the water heater is electric. If the heating elements are covered in lime deposits from hard water, that reduces efficiency.

 

ETA: When it comes to energy cost, the top culprit (after A/C, heating, and water heater) is fridge/freezer. The real luxury appliance is the 20 y/o beer fridge in the garage.

 

[idnib]

. 

 

[idnib]

. 

 

[Catwoman]

Doesn't it cost more to run one than to just do the dishes though, even if one can afford the initial cost?

 

(I've never used one. We live in Europe in a country where you pay a flat monthly rate for water. So here, I'd imagine that the electricity a dishwasher uses costs more than just using water, which is heated by a boiler so uses electricity as well, but probably less. I don't know how dishwashers actually work though. I think washing machines use cold water which they then heat internally. Do dishwasher do that too? Here's one thing I do know: the cheaper dishwashers are smaller, so you'd have to run them more often.)

Actually, the cheaper dishwashers are the exact same size as the more expensive models, because the size is standardized to fit into a specific-sized opening in the kitchen. (You can get smaller, apartment-sized dishwashers but people don't usually buy them unless their space is extremely tiny.)

 

I'm not sure of the exact operating costs, but it's not expensive. If you were to handwash the same number of dishes that a dishwasher holds, you might even use more water than you would with a dishwasher. But again, I'm not sure about that.

[Catwoman]

Yep. $200 is not a small amount and nothing to sneeze at.

If a family can't save up $200 to buy a dishwasher, I would suggest to you that they are not a middle class family.

 

Obviously, if buying a dishwasher isn't a priority, it doesn't matter, but $200 is not a huge amount of money for a middle class family to spend on an appliance.

[Χά�ων]

If a family can't save up $200 to buy a dishwasher, I would suggest to you that they are not a middle class family.

 

Obviously, if buying a dishwasher isn't a priority, it doesn't matter, but $200 is not a huge amount of money for a middle class family to spend on an appliance.

Many families who have a middle class income are living pay check to pay check due to student loans, mortage payments and various other reasons. It does not change that $200 can break the budget. Getting an additional line of credit, as suggested by SKL (I think, if I am wrong please correct me, this thread is moving so fast) is not always an option. Plus, if one has to put it on a credit card then it is not easy to come up with the money. 

[QueenCat]

Doesn't it cost more to run one than to just do the dishes though, even if one can afford the initial cost? 

 

(I've never used one. We live in Europe in a country where you pay a flat monthly rate for water. So here, I'd imagine that the electricity a dishwasher uses costs more than just using water, which is heated by a boiler so uses electricity as well, but probably less. I don't know how dishwashers actually work though. I think washing machines use cold water which they then heat internally. Do dishwasher do that too? Here's one thing I do know: the cheaper dishwashers are smaller, so you'd have to run them more often.)

 

Actually, it's cheaper to run a dishwasher than to do dishes by hand. It uses less water than washing and rinsing everything by hand. Our water company reminds us of that fact every year, when they send out their annual "tips for using less water" blurb.

[Catwoman]

Many families who have a middle class income are living pay check to pay check due to student loans, mortage payments and various other reasons. It does not change that $200 can break the budget. Getting an additional line of credit, as suggested by SKL (I think, if I am wrong please correct me, this thread is moving so fast) is not always an option. Plus, if one has to put it on a credit card then it is not easy to come up with the money.

I definitely wouldn't suggest putting it on a credit card if finances are already tight. I was thinking that since a dishwasher isn't a necessity, people could save up for it over time if they wanted one.

 

I'm not a big fan of using credit cards for non-necessities if you can't pay the bills off right away. That $200 dishwasher could quickly end up costing twice that much if the buyer uses a credit card and can't afford to pay the balance.

[Χά�ων]

I definitely wouldn't suggest putting it on a credit card if finances are already tight. I was thinking that since a dishwasher isn't a necessity, people could save up for it over time if they wanted one.

 

I'm not a big fan of using credit cards for non-necessities if you can't pay the bills off right away. That $200 dishwasher could quickly end up costing twice that much if the buyer uses a credit card and can't afford to pay the balance.

I understand you now.