The recording companies will push as long and as hard as they can -- they'll pause when someone pushes back.
Only by continually testing the line will they be able to determine how much the market will bear, which is how they determine their prices. MS breaking off negotiations is a negotiating tactic in itself -- MS has communicated to the recording companies that they are demanding too much.
Wait a month or two, the recording industry will come down in price, and both sides will have a deal they are content with.
I don't agree about the top range, since the ridiculously high figures are statistically outliers, and should be discounted. Even so, I crunched some census figures from 2002...
I do agree that a programmer making 55k a couple years out of college is at least borderline upper class if employed in an area where cost of living is low. Assuming a two-income family, even if your spouse were employed at a lower rate, figure 90-100k family income (and that's just wages, doesn't include investment earnings)... that's enough to provide significant discretionary income while covering even all the non-obvious bases (retirement, tuition savings for the kids, etc).
According to the census bureau, the middle quintile of households had an upper limit of 53,300 in earnings in 2002. This is per household, not per person. Since wages have not climbed faster than cost-of-living since 2002, I think it still holds as a fair comparison. As a single person, 55k puts you solidly in the highest quintile in terms of income per person (46008 is the average income per person in the 5th quintile, which includes the $10,000,000 earning households, so is significantly higher than the median for the quintile). If you and a spouse together made 90k, and had two kids, you'd be solidly in the top quintile, which begins at 84,322 for household earnings.
So, I find it hard to believe that someone well in the top 20% of national income per person, who, even if he had two kids and a spouse on his income alone, would still be in the top 40% of household incomes, and lives in a below-average cost-of-living area, considers himself to be middle class.
I do think, however, that our expectations of "middle-class" life are higher than what the middle class (financially) actually delivers. We tend to describe a certain lifestyle as middle-class, regardless of whether those in the middle can actually afford to live that lifestyle.
A "middle-class" living situation is not achievable on a middle-class income; rather, one needs an upper-class income to live a "middle-class" life...
I don't think upper class = rich. I see "rich" people as being in the upper part of upper class.
Regarding definitions of classes, it depends on the area in which people live. The average technical person lives in a place with a higher cost of living, in general. So, when comparing income to cost of living, they aren't that far outside average.
I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that anyone above poverty level is middle class.
"20,000 is well above 2 standard deviations from mean, is probably even above one standard deviation.
200,000 on the other hand, is close to the 2 standard deviation mark. "
Income comparisons use median, not mean, since it is a skewed distribution; for the same reason, std devs are not really useful. You can use the loosely defined "around the national average" model, but a more generally used measurement for middle class in the US is 75 - 125% of the median income. The federal government does not use cost of living to adjust this, however; I would prefer a measurement of 75-125% of median income / cost of living adjustment factor (based on family size and location), but this just gets too hard to calculate and do meaningful comparisons.
US median income was 44,473 in 2003, so by the accepted definition from above, US middle class is 33,355 - 55,591. (No adjustments for family size, cost of living, etc).
There's an interesting article about why so many people consider themselves middle class, even when they are not, plus some info about how the middle class is changing -- it's worth a read, even if it is 10 years old:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m402 1/is_n10_v18/ai_18722956
20k is below poverty level for a family of four... I don't think that anyone above poverty level is middle class. Even if 15% of the country subsists on 20k or less a year, that doesn't mean that they are not in poverty.
I think that too many people think they are middle class, even when they are not. Lower class people want to be be middle class because no one wants to believe they are below average. Higher class people think of themselves as middle class because "middle class values" are the ideal in US society.
"If builders were churning out tract housing today instead of McMansions, I doubt they'd be more than the same price in real dollars."
True; but then again, one of the reasons the comparison still holds is that class is a measure of relative wealth, so people will compare to what is "standard" for their class.
"The data since 2001 is presumably a bubble in housing prices of dot-com proportions. "
Actually, that figure is pre-bubble; the current housing bubble started in 02. Today it is much, much worse. Furthermore, housing bubbles are "sticky" on the way down... and it is likely that the boom cycle will renew before significantly lower prices are seen.
"Housing prices seem to be leveling off this summer even in hot markets, and if that's true we'll see how fast they come down once the other shoe drops on all those interest-only mortgages."
Not at all. Leveling off just means they are seeing less than the 30% growth of the past two years. There is still double-digit growth on average, hot areas still saw 20% and higher this year. There has been no stagnation, until possibly right now (in certain markets). The interest-only loans are a different matter, but most banks are not over-extended, and entry of those homes back into the market due to foreclosures is some time away. Those interest-only mortgages actually will act to keep home prices inflated, since they exert a disincentive to lower selling prices.
"It's also worth keeping in mind that many households now have 2 incomes by choice (which was barely an option in the 50s), and fewer people per household, so income/member-of-household has gone up much faster than average individual income."
Well, per household, median income in 2001 was $51407, so we're looking at a ratio of 2.72 -- still significantly higher, plus it took more than one income to get that ratio. All the analysis I've read points to the fact that when adjusted for double-income, the gap is worse than it is with only one income. I'd be curious to see figures for median income per member of household, I would speculate that the increase is very, very slight -- I don't think the median number of household members has dropped a huge amount (as opposed to average, which has)
When you normalize income for cost of living (because you most likely could make more money in NYC or Chicago), I think you'd find that you are solidly about middle class. If you make significantly more than the median income in your area, then I would consider you upper class.
5000 sqft home? Anywhere you are, that is not middle class -- that is firmly upper class.
Your absolutely right, which is why class distinctions are based on relative wealth.
"Look at what it would cost to maintain an early-50s middle class lifestyle today. One car (requiring constant maintenance), a gas or electric stove, and running water. If you have a TV and a fridge and a washing-machine, you've got it made, as most in the middle class are still working towards completing the set. "Luxury" is relative as well."
In 2001, median home price was 139,700; national median income was 33,958, a ratio of 4.11 to 1. Since 2001, median home price has grown extremely fast while earnings have not, so these figures understate the difference in housing costs vs. incomes, which is now closer to 6 to 1.
So that 1950s lifestyle is a lot less likely for someone to afford today, even though there were far fewer amenities.
I'm all up for a cheaper area, but proximity to the in-laws is a dealbreaker for my wife... so we'll just grin and bear it for now, I guess.
If we were to move to a cheaper area, probably only one of us (meaning me) would work.
I'm a big fan of child care... the small families that we have today tend to limit social development of kids if they are brought up in the home, I think. It's hard to find a balance, though, since it seems a lot of parents are too disinterested in their kids. We will be doing a 3/2 split for child care / days at home.
I'm not in CA. I'm in NJ. And climate is not the only factor for where people live (because who would live in NJ/NY if so?)
What I am paying for is proximity to employment (NYC).
Unfortunately, in that 90% of the country where you can get a nice house for that price, less than half (quite a bit less than half) the population can afford that house.
"It does not matter. NASA shut them up by saying one little word... they are RENTING. therefore property tax can not be collected from anyone but the land owner.(unless there are some really absurd laws there that allow land to be double taxed.)
"
Hello? Property taxes get passed on to the tenant in the form of higher rents.
Second, a ton of municipalities charge Commercial Rent Tax -- which, it turns out, are a really easy way to make property double-taxed.
It's like property tax, but worse. It's just a way for municipalities to get more revenue from businesses without assessing the landlord additional tax.
Also, the property tax assessed on the landowner will be reflected in increased rent paid by the tenant.
Well, property tax abatements have been in use for a long, long time. The problem is that they don't work from a broad wiewpoint... all they do is reduce corporate expenses and government tax reciepts, while directing development to a specific area.
Is it a net gain for Santa Clara? I think so. But whatever location they would have put the offices otherwise loses out. It ends up not being a net gain for society.
Property taxes do seem unfair, and they definitely help freeze the poor out of ownership. However, I think it's even more unfair to have property taxes assessed inequitably.
If the federal government wants to subsidize research, great, I'm all for it... but I'd rather they not shortchange municipalities in the process.
"Those things that everyone in the middle class can afford, no matter how nice from the perspective of another time or culture, are *by definition* not luxuries."
No, luxuries are things that are not necessities, by definition. Food, housing, utilities, transportation, health insurance... all these are necessities in the US. Since when is a luxury defined by the ability of a middle class person to afford it?
"We're all so caught up in how the rich (those bastards) live relative to us that we rarely realize how nice we really have it."
Good point, except the entire discussion is about defining classes, which is about relative wealth. In terms of absolute wealth, and quality of life (which is what it's all about, really), we are much better off now.
Do your "lower-class" neighbors have retirement plans? Are you so certain that their income is less than yours? Are you certain that their income is not above the median income for your area/state?
I consider myself middle-class... but I cannot afford a house in a neighborhood I wouldn't be scared in (and I'm a big dude).
Meant to say they won't be able to afford private schools. What makes me so certain? Income levels and cost of private schooling. How much does that convenience store clerk make? How about the person who works for the maid service? What about the waiter at the restaurant?
Two centuries is a long time, since it encompasses the modern era. We have no frame of reference for historical comparison, since schooling was not mandatory, nor even close to universal, in previous eras.
I'm not trying to be conservative or liberal, nor am I trolling. I'm making the case that Google, by not having to pay property tax, will be shifting tax burden onto residential, or other commercial, property owners in Santa Clara, since the services they will be paying for do not encompass all the services that municipalities normally provide.
If anyone is trolling here, it would be the person who tossed in the validity of public schools, when it has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Either way, government pays (public schools or vouchers), and the majority of the funding for that comes from property taxes... which is what this is about.
But that's irrelevant to my point, which is simply that the economy is targetted at the middle class which have all the same things as the upper-class, just not as lavish.:-)
Except they don't have all the same things... at best they have one of those things, usually with some sort of sacrifice involved.
Luxury goods are directed to those with lots of disposable income, which, IMO, does not typically include the middle class.
There are definitely tons of other places where the income-to-housing cost ratio is not nearly so bad, like the NC research triangle.
.
However, I still submit that the middle half or third of the population cannot really afford a 2000 square foot home, almost anywhere. Sure, there a lots of high-paying jobs in Chapel Hill / Raleigh/Durham. There are also lots and lots of low-paying jobs. Look at these figures for median income: http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/bapcpa/bci_data/median_in come_table.htm
Even assuming a family of four, you've got median income of less than 60k, with all the expenses associated with two dependents...
I had better look into some of these areas, though, since obviously I'm barking up the wrong tree here in NJ.
"I wonder what proportion of Google workers will use public schools and which of them will send their children off to private schools?"
But what of the children of the service-industry workers that will pop up to support the Google employees? I'm pretty certain that most of them will not be able to afford public schools.
"Are you aware of how long public schools have been around? It's a fairly new concept, and has proven to be quite arguable that it's working."
Fairly new? Public schools have been around for centuries. You don't need to prove that something is arguable... anything is arguable. Or is there proof that it is not working? Either way, whether or not the public school system works has no bearing on the tax burden of Google in Santa Clara, or the tax burden of the residents there in this issue -- the schools are there (or will be) and will need to be paid for.
Re: cars, you're right, but with a consideration, explained below.
Re: Cell phone, I didn't preview my post, the third example was to read "less than" $100 cell phone -- but the "less than" symbol doesn't quite come through... I did not that some of the examples wre changed...
Re: planes... Even with a bank loan, $20-50k for a plane is out of reach for well over 2/3 of the population. What about operating costs, and airport fees?Some middle-class people may be willing to sacrifice a ton in order to have a plane... but it's not really affordable for the middle class.
"Living in the city, a 2 bedroom 800sqft condo IS spacious. Living out in the coutry, it would be pretty sad if you couldn't do far better than that on much less money."
It is pretty sad, but that's the way it is in the NYC Metro area of NJ (which almost to PA, 60 miles). The places that are bigger for the money have other problems, such as dangerous neighborhoods, terrible schools, or other considerations that make them nothing like a "middle-class" neighborhood.
So, as for the consideration I mentioned above... people in the middle class could afford a plane, could afford a sports car, etc. The thing is, they need to sacrifice in order to do so. They don't have a ton of discretionary income laying around that they can pick and choose any luxuries to spend it on. These purchases that you mention would require the typical middle-class family to sacrifice elsewhere to afford.
The point I'm making is that the upper class can afford these things without sacrificing, the middle class cannot.
I live in NJ, commute via train to New York. Out of curiousity, when did you buy your house? Because there is no way that a 2000 sqft house only costs $300,000 anywhere near NYC... and I would think Boston as well.
"3. Does anyone actually have a use for all these Windows "Tablet PCs"? I mean, the idea seems nice, but I haven't seen any real-world uses for them that laptops don't already meet."
You can use them while standing. On mass-transit, or in line at the grocery store, for example. Laptops are very cumbersome to use in a lot of situations.
The advantage of a tablet PC over a PDA is a bigger, and better, display.
Nokia consistently releases products late. I don't know if they are just too optimistic when calendaring product releases, or if there's good business reasons to do so.
Interestingly enough, delays in product rollouts were forecast when Compaq and Nokia announced collaboration way back in 2000: http://www.wapforum.org/new/20000911158Com.htm. (The prediction is there, although there's a lot of text to scan)
Apparently, Nokia's corporate culture still finds delayed rollouts to be just fine, as we've seen from the N90 and N91... which is odd, since Nokia's profit margins have been eroding since 2004, due to lack of available products in the face of increased competetion from Motorola, et al.
Slashdot Mirror
"There are better ways to support the artist than buying their music. Steal the music, go to their concerts, [buy] their t-shirts." (emphasis mine)
I'm confused... how is stealing an artist's works supporting that artist?
The recording companies will push as long and as hard as they can -- they'll pause when someone pushes back.
Only by continually testing the line will they be able to determine how much the market will bear, which is how they determine their prices. MS breaking off negotiations is a negotiating tactic in itself -- MS has communicated to the recording companies that they are demanding too much.
Wait a month or two, the recording industry will come down in price, and both sides will have a deal they are content with.
I don't agree about the top range, since the ridiculously high figures are statistically outliers, and should be discounted. Even so, I crunched some census figures from 2002...
I do agree that a programmer making 55k a couple years out of college is at least borderline upper class if employed in an area where cost of living is low. Assuming a two-income family, even if your spouse were employed at a lower rate, figure 90-100k family income (and that's just wages, doesn't include investment earnings)... that's enough to provide significant discretionary income while covering even all the non-obvious bases (retirement, tuition savings for the kids, etc).
According to the census bureau, the middle quintile of households had an upper limit of 53,300 in earnings in 2002. This is per household, not per person. Since wages have not climbed faster than cost-of-living since 2002, I think it still holds as a fair comparison. As a single person, 55k puts you solidly in the highest quintile in terms of income per person (46008 is the average income per person in the 5th quintile, which includes the $10,000,000 earning households, so is significantly higher than the median for the quintile). If you and a spouse together made 90k, and had two kids, you'd be solidly in the top quintile, which begins at 84,322 for household earnings.
So, I find it hard to believe that someone well in the top 20% of national income per person, who, even if he had two kids and a spouse on his income alone, would still be in the top 40% of household incomes, and lives in a below-average cost-of-living area, considers himself to be middle class.
I do think, however, that our expectations of "middle-class" life are higher than what the middle class (financially) actually delivers. We tend to describe a certain lifestyle as middle-class, regardless of whether those in the middle can actually afford to live that lifestyle.
A "middle-class" living situation is not achievable on a middle-class income; rather, one needs an upper-class income to live a "middle-class" life...
I don't think upper class = rich. I see "rich" people as being in the upper part of upper class.
h resh04.html
2 1/is_n10_v18/ai_18722956
Regarding definitions of classes, it depends on the area in which people live. The average technical person lives in a place with a higher cost of living, in general. So, when comparing income to cost of living, they aren't that far outside average.
BTW, households that are considered to be "in poverty" tend to be much larger than the average household. Here's some info on poverty thresholds in 2004 in he US: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/t
I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that anyone above poverty level is middle class.
"20,000 is well above 2 standard deviations from mean, is probably even above one standard deviation. 200,000 on the other hand, is close to the 2 standard deviation mark. "
Income comparisons use median, not mean, since it is a skewed distribution; for the same reason, std devs are not really useful. You can use the loosely defined "around the national average" model, but a more generally used measurement for middle class in the US is 75 - 125% of the median income. The federal government does not use cost of living to adjust this, however; I would prefer a measurement of 75-125% of median income / cost of living adjustment factor (based on family size and location), but this just gets too hard to calculate and do meaningful comparisons.
US median income was 44,473 in 2003, so by the accepted definition from above, US middle class is 33,355 - 55,591. (No adjustments for family size, cost of living, etc).
There's an interesting article about why so many people consider themselves middle class, even when they are not, plus some info about how the middle class is changing -- it's worth a read, even if it is 10 years old:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m40
20k is below poverty level for a family of four... I don't think that anyone above poverty level is middle class. Even if 15% of the country subsists on 20k or less a year, that doesn't mean that they are not in poverty.
I think that too many people think they are middle class, even when they are not. Lower class people want to be be middle class because no one wants to believe they are below average. Higher class people think of themselves as middle class because "middle class values" are the ideal in US society.
I think your definition of middle class is way, way too large. A VERY small percentage of the population makes over $200,000.
Conversely, $20,000 is VERY low, almost poverty line. The purchasing power of $20k is nil with regards to housing.
"If builders were churning out tract housing today instead of McMansions, I doubt they'd be more than the same price in real dollars."
True; but then again, one of the reasons the comparison still holds is that class is a measure of relative wealth, so people will compare to what is "standard" for their class.
"The data since 2001 is presumably a bubble in housing prices of dot-com proportions. "
Actually, that figure is pre-bubble; the current housing bubble started in 02. Today it is much, much worse. Furthermore, housing bubbles are "sticky" on the way down... and it is likely that the boom cycle will renew before significantly lower prices are seen.
"Housing prices seem to be leveling off this summer even in hot markets, and if that's true we'll see how fast they come down once the other shoe drops on all those interest-only mortgages."
Not at all. Leveling off just means they are seeing less than the 30% growth of the past two years. There is still double-digit growth on average, hot areas still saw 20% and higher this year. There has been no stagnation, until possibly right now (in certain markets). The interest-only loans are a different matter, but most banks are not over-extended, and entry of those homes back into the market due to foreclosures is some time away. Those interest-only mortgages actually will act to keep home prices inflated, since they exert a disincentive to lower selling prices.
"It's also worth keeping in mind that many households now have 2 incomes by choice (which was barely an option in the 50s), and fewer people per household, so income/member-of-household has gone up much faster than average individual income."
Well, per household, median income in 2001 was $51407, so we're looking at a ratio of 2.72 -- still significantly higher, plus it took more than one income to get that ratio. All the analysis I've read points to the fact that when adjusted for double-income, the gap is worse than it is with only one income. I'd be curious to see figures for median income per member of household, I would speculate that the increase is very, very slight -- I don't think the median number of household members has dropped a huge amount (as opposed to average, which has)
When you normalize income for cost of living (because you most likely could make more money in NYC or Chicago), I think you'd find that you are solidly about middle class. If you make significantly more than the median income in your area, then I would consider you upper class.
5000 sqft home? Anywhere you are, that is not middle class -- that is firmly upper class.
Your absolutely right, which is why class distinctions are based on relative wealth.
l
"Look at what it would cost to maintain an early-50s middle class lifestyle today. One car (requiring constant maintenance), a gas or electric stove, and running water. If you have a TV and a fridge and a washing-machine, you've got it made, as most in the middle class are still working towards completing the set. "Luxury" is relative as well."
Of course, in the 1950s, the median home cost $7354 http://policy.rutgers.edu/news/rrr_sept03.pdf.
while median income was $3319, a ration of 2.22 to 1. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f05.htm
In 2001, median home price was 139,700; national median income was 33,958, a ratio of 4.11 to 1. Since 2001, median home price has grown extremely fast while earnings have not, so these figures understate the difference in housing costs vs. incomes, which is now closer to 6 to 1.
So that 1950s lifestyle is a lot less likely for someone to afford today, even though there were far fewer amenities.
I'm all up for a cheaper area, but proximity to the in-laws is a dealbreaker for my wife... so we'll just grin and bear it for now, I guess.
If we were to move to a cheaper area, probably only one of us (meaning me) would work.
I'm a big fan of child care... the small families that we have today tend to limit social development of kids if they are brought up in the home, I think. It's hard to find a balance, though, since it seems a lot of parents are too disinterested in their kids. We will be doing a 3/2 split for child care / days at home.
I'm not in CA. I'm in NJ. And climate is not the only factor for where people live (because who would live in NJ/NY if so?)
/just sayin...
What I am paying for is proximity to employment (NYC).
Unfortunately, in that 90% of the country where you can get a nice house for that price, less than half (quite a bit less than half) the population can afford that house.
"It does not matter. NASA shut them up by saying one little word... they are RENTING. therefore property tax can not be collected from anyone but the land owner.(unless there are some really absurd laws there that allow land to be double taxed.) "
Hello? Property taxes get passed on to the tenant in the form of higher rents.
Second, a ton of municipalities charge Commercial Rent Tax -- which, it turns out, are a really easy way to make property double-taxed.
Commercial Rent Tax.
It's like property tax, but worse. It's just a way for municipalities to get more revenue from businesses without assessing the landlord additional tax.
Also, the property tax assessed on the landowner will be reflected in increased rent paid by the tenant.
Well, property tax abatements have been in use for a long, long time. The problem is that they don't work from a broad wiewpoint... all they do is reduce corporate expenses and government tax reciepts, while directing development to a specific area.
Is it a net gain for Santa Clara? I think so. But whatever location they would have put the offices otherwise loses out. It ends up not being a net gain for society.
Property taxes do seem unfair, and they definitely help freeze the poor out of ownership. However, I think it's even more unfair to have property taxes assessed inequitably.
If the federal government wants to subsidize research, great, I'm all for it... but I'd rather they not shortchange municipalities in the process.
"Those things that everyone in the middle class can afford, no matter how nice from the perspective of another time or culture, are *by definition* not luxuries."
No, luxuries are things that are not necessities, by definition. Food, housing, utilities, transportation, health insurance... all these are necessities in the US. Since when is a luxury defined by the ability of a middle class person to afford it?
"We're all so caught up in how the rich (those bastards) live relative to us that we rarely realize how nice we really have it."
Good point, except the entire discussion is about defining classes, which is about relative wealth. In terms of absolute wealth, and quality of life (which is what it's all about, really), we are much better off now.
THe $3k cell phone is from the OP, not me.
Do your "lower-class" neighbors have retirement plans? Are you so certain that their income is less than yours? Are you certain that their income is not above the median income for your area/state?
I consider myself middle-class... but I cannot afford a house in a neighborhood I wouldn't be scared in (and I'm a big dude).
Well, $1100 a month dries up really quickly if you have two kids (not unreasonable for a middle class family).
Transportation gets really expensive... two cars (even if one has been paid off), insurance, fuel, maintenance.
Utilities.
Food.
What if you have a newborn? Diapers, food, etc.
Childcare? Easily 1k a month for two kids... where I live, 1.2k per kid per month. One parent stays home? That income level is based upon two earners.
That mortgage payment of $1400 is not affordable for people who have kids and both work.
Yeah, and I am sucking it up and buying a condo... which is still a stretch.
Meant to say they won't be able to afford private schools. What makes me so certain? Income levels and cost of private schooling. How much does that convenience store clerk make? How about the person who works for the maid service? What about the waiter at the restaurant?
Two centuries is a long time, since it encompasses the modern era. We have no frame of reference for historical comparison, since schooling was not mandatory, nor even close to universal, in previous eras.
I'm not trying to be conservative or liberal, nor am I trolling. I'm making the case that Google, by not having to pay property tax, will be shifting tax burden onto residential, or other commercial, property owners in Santa Clara, since the services they will be paying for do not encompass all the services that municipalities normally provide.
If anyone is trolling here, it would be the person who tossed in the validity of public schools, when it has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Either way, government pays (public schools or vouchers), and the majority of the funding for that comes from property taxes... which is what this is about.
But that's irrelevant to my point, which is simply that the economy is targetted at the middle class which have all the same things as the upper-class, just not as lavish. :-)
Except they don't have all the same things... at best they have one of those things, usually with some sort of sacrifice involved.
Luxury goods are directed to those with lots of disposable income, which, IMO, does not typically include the middle class.
There are definitely tons of other places where the income-to-housing cost ratio is not nearly so bad, like the NC research triangle.
/Durham. There are also lots and lots of low-paying jobs. Look at these figures for median income:n come_table.htm
. However, I still submit that the middle half or third of the population cannot really afford a 2000 square foot home, almost anywhere. Sure, there a lots of high-paying jobs in Chapel Hill / Raleigh
http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/bapcpa/bci_data/median_i
Even assuming a family of four, you've got median income of less than 60k, with all the expenses associated with two dependents...
I had better look into some of these areas, though, since obviously I'm barking up the wrong tree here in NJ.
"Um...Q3 2005 was over a couple of days ago...it's now Q4 2005 unless you're using a business calendar rather than a chronological calendar..."
If they are going by fiscal quarters, it's even worse... Oct 1 was the first day of Q1 2006.
"I wonder what proportion of Google workers will use public schools and which of them will send their children off to private schools?"
But what of the children of the service-industry workers that will pop up to support the Google employees? I'm pretty certain that most of them will not be able to afford public schools.
"Are you aware of how long public schools have been around? It's a fairly new concept, and has proven to be quite arguable that it's working."
Fairly new? Public schools have been around for centuries. You don't need to prove that something is arguable... anything is arguable. Or is there proof that it is not working? Either way, whether or not the public school system works has no bearing on the tax burden of Google in Santa Clara, or the tax burden of the residents there in this issue -- the schools are there (or will be) and will need to be paid for.
Re: cars, you're right, but with a consideration, explained below.
Re: Cell phone, I didn't preview my post, the third example was to read "less than" $100 cell phone -- but the "less than" symbol doesn't quite come through... I did not that some of the examples wre changed...
Re: planes... Even with a bank loan, $20-50k for a plane is out of reach for well over 2/3 of the population. What about operating costs, and airport fees?Some middle-class people may be willing to sacrifice a ton in order to have a plane... but it's not really affordable for the middle class.
"Living in the city, a 2 bedroom 800sqft condo IS spacious. Living out in the coutry, it would be pretty sad if you couldn't do far better than that on much less money."
It is pretty sad, but that's the way it is in the NYC Metro area of NJ (which almost to PA, 60 miles). The places that are bigger for the money have other problems, such as dangerous neighborhoods, terrible schools, or other considerations that make them nothing like a "middle-class" neighborhood.
So, as for the consideration I mentioned above... people in the middle class could afford a plane, could afford a sports car, etc. The thing is, they need to sacrifice in order to do so. They don't have a ton of discretionary income laying around that they can pick and choose any luxuries to spend it on. These purchases that you mention would require the typical middle-class family to sacrifice elsewhere to afford.
The point I'm making is that the upper class can afford these things without sacrificing, the middle class cannot.
I live in NJ, commute via train to New York. Out of curiousity, when did you buy your house? Because there is no way that a 2000 sqft house only costs $300,000 anywhere near NYC... and I would think Boston as well.
"3. Does anyone actually have a use for all these Windows "Tablet PCs"? I mean, the idea seems nice, but I haven't seen any real-world uses for them that laptops don't already meet."
You can use them while standing. On mass-transit, or in line at the grocery store, for example. Laptops are very cumbersome to use in a lot of situations.
The advantage of a tablet PC over a PDA is a bigger, and better, display.
Nokia consistently releases products late. I don't know if they are just too optimistic when calendaring product releases, or if there's good business reasons to do so.
Interestingly enough, delays in product rollouts were forecast when Compaq and Nokia announced collaboration way back in 2000:
http://www.wapforum.org/new/20000911158Com.htm. (The prediction is there, although there's a lot of text to scan)
Apparently, Nokia's corporate culture still finds delayed rollouts to be just fine, as we've seen from the N90 and N91... which is odd, since Nokia's profit margins have been eroding since 2004, due to lack of available products in the face of increased competetion from Motorola, et al.