75% of middle-class households say their income is behind the cost of living | Hacker News Reader

75% of middle-class households say their income is behind the cost of living

cnbc.com

53 pointspaulpauper16 comments

I would argue that 75% of middle class is no longer middle class then. Democrats are going to get curb stomped in November regardless.

Everyone always thinks they are the middle class. There are always going to be people richer than you and poorer tha you, so its easy to think of yourself as being in the middle.

Good, now enjoy the lack of a citizen's dividend as your hard work pays income taxes which improve the infrastructure around you and thereby increase the value of land which in turn must be paid to the owner of the land through higher rents and mortgage payments. Pay once for the infrastructure, pay again to be allowed to live near it.

This is an interesting point, but the sarcastic tone detracts a bit from it. Instead I think it's better to consider how it could be done more fairly. Maybe infra that increases value of land should be funded through land-value taxation?

Publicly funding a private land is another way of describing renting, as there never was citizen's dividends in the first place.

I do not understand. There is a mix of articles saying that inflation devastate middle-class and also that nobody want's to work or that there is great job leaving.

Also that we have climate crisis but prices for energy is so high that nobody cares about climate anymore.

So... Whats the point of those articles?

To address your question, the point is for you to click on the link :).

Otherwise, I think that the fall in work motivation is definitely connected to inflation. First, the money you make is worth less, so it seems pointless. Second, you see the super rich getting even more so, and without work. You feel like the stupidest guy in the room.

I mean, what is "cost of living"?

Seems like a pretty ambigious term that could mean anything

There are some big graphs with lots of items that the article defines as cost of living

You mean the graph where people surveyed are going to eat out less and buy fewer laptops/tech gadgets?

I dont really think that was meant to define cost of living, and honestly both those things don't exactly sound like core cost of living items.

People need computers / smartphones

They don’t need the latest one every year, so buying one every few years is fine, but they need one at least

And for big families, typically you will need a smartphone per person — computer can be shared

So is your point that a standard cost of living somehow can’t be logically defined?

Or are you one of those people who thinks that sacrificing common needs and making huge changes like location/job are somehow the solution? To be clear, the survey was not done solely in the Bay Area.

My point is, if i want to know how the economy is actually doing, i want objective measures. A subjective survey of ill defined terms doesn't tell me much (other than perhaps how worried people are).

CPI is a great indicator of cost of living and is defined rigorously by law. We can argue if it is missing things, and I would agree. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore its value.

People being worried about their daily expenses skyrocketing is important? Your privileged lack of worry doesn’t solve the world’s problems.

> CPI is a great indicator of cost of living and is defined rigorously by law

Sure, but this survey doesn't use that.

> People being worried about their daily expenses skyrocketing is important? Your privileged lack of worry doesn’t solve the world’s problems.

Neither does fear mongering reporting. Its not wrong to be worried, but reliable information is critical to take appropriate action.

I think consumer credit card debt (1) is a good indicator of normal people’s inability to pay for their expenses upfront, i.e. their “income is behind the cost of living”.

(1) https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com