I found this a very interesting read.

http://www.demos.org/pubs/BaT112807.pdf

It puts those "economy is doing great" comments into context.

Reads like a press release from the DNC.

Like approval ratings for DUHbya from the RNC.

I didn't know there was still a middle class.

Not if the neo-CONers can help it....

You can find the middle class in Hillsboro and Beaverton. That's where you find people who work in the tech industry and live in suburban neighborhoods. It's funny; those on the left often criticize the values and the white-bread, yupie nature of the suburbs. Then, they also complain that that very group of people is shrinking!

LOOK WITH YOUR EYES Shane! The middle class is being squeezed before your very eyes. If you can't see it then you have DUHbya glasses on.

Shane- That's a bit of an over generalization. I'm an urbanite along with all my "middle class" urbanites.

Middle class is found not in neighborhoods so much but in lifestyle. I would never trade my middle class urbanism for the burbs'.

The designation of "middle class" to me should be based on income, not where you live or how you earn your money.

Here's how I view the middle class based on household size:

Single income: $35K-$60K
Dual income: $50K-75K

I'm curious how others view this.

Those income in Oklahoma, Texas or other southern states, would be a good income. In California, Washington , Oregon, New York it would be very low.

To me the definition of Middle class, is having enough income to live in a decent house, have a devent car, money to put jind in some activities, and save enough for retirement/childrens education.

Help, I've now fallen into "lower class" because we gave up all our savings and my career to have a child and stay at home. I can't get up.

(Vit, I think those are fairly low figures for around here...I don't think you can buy a house and have a great life for 35K, am I wrong?)

Median income for a 4 person family in Oregon is about $58K per year (2004 figures). So, I'd say my income figures are about right on.

Merkin, you can buy a house making $35K if you have no other debt and are willing to sacrifice some things like a car payment or vacations. But, that house would be in the $180K range and you'd need at least a 3% down payment.

Merkin, you can buy a house making $35K if you have no other debt and are willing to sacrifice some things like a car payment or vacations. But, that house would be in the $180K range and you'd need at least a 3% down payment.

And if you didn't have to pay for health care, electricity, water/sewer or gas every month.
My sister lives alone makes $42,000 a year has NO kids and only $3,000 in debt on a credit line and it's still hard.

Where are you going to find a house for 180,000??? Vernonia? Timber? NE Portland?

some decent houses under 100K in WA and OR but no place close to a job. Now, come back here and you can get a nice home and acreage for well under 100k... depending on your career, you can live well, or work at walmart and just live, but you still get the house.. (rather be there though, family reasons)

A foreclosed former meth house in Lents maybe?

Government places "middle class" on endangered spiecies list, lost of habitat and lifestyle cited. more at 11

There are plenty of places for $180K or below in Portland metro. It may not be the best of neighborhoods, it may be a condo or townhome, but they are out there.

The old house across the street from ours was remodeled and went for just under $450,000 last year. Just taking a gander from my porch, I can see it still needs major structural work. Granted, after the ethnic cleansing, my neighborhood is a pretty hot market.

If you are talking about getting a trailer on a dirt road in Estacada, it is still gonna run you half a mil for the property alone. When the market tanks, the prices won't drop that far. You might get one of those cardboard condominiums scattered across the remnants of a suburban garbage dump, but 180K is just a down payment on the places that were built on prime farmland.

In Portland proper, those kinds of prices are from the mid-80s. You could still find the husk of a place in the city for that money, but I think Merkin is spot on about your choices and chances. You are talking about a slapped up 70s ranch style in East County with painted over blood stains, patched bullet holes and insulation still soaked in pepper spray.

(Simultaneously shaking head and cracking up at LS)

All probably charmless and definitely located in an area that you wouldn't want to send your kids to school in, or ride MAX to or from work...on either end.

RMLS shows 92 detached single family homes and 96 condos for sale between $170-$190K in Portland (city, not metro area). But then again, beggers can't be choosers.

My first home was one like that. My wife and I bought it for a mere $50K in 91! It sold (and was not in the best of condition --hey, young kids can be rough!) for $150K. In 98, we bought the house next to it. The neighbor had completely remodeled it, and moved because his family was larger than the home. Bought that one for $110,000. He had made a similar purchase sometime in 92, for about 30K.

That one sold, at the same time mine did, for $175,000.


Despite all the issues we have right now, a young person, choosing to buy a home at this time, will appreciate $170K, just like we appreciated $50K.


The only real significant difference, I see at this time, happens to be availability of jobs that can support that $170K. IMHO, it's tougher for that 21 year old to get that home these days.

Put into perspective, when we bought ours, my wife and I together made about $45K. We let her brother rent, to help make the payment, hoping our income would go up. It did, and he eventually moved out on his own, when we adopted the kids.

Our buying power, per dollar, was higher then. That's another big difference between then and now, I think will impact new home buyers, young families. Couple that with job availability, and I believe quite a few families will either double up like we did (which was not common among my peers, many of whom chose to wait and rent), or choose to just rent.

I don't believe it's any less possible to step up and own a home now, than it was before. The amount of personal sacrifice is higher though. IMHO, that level is currently too high.

What I find interesting is that median income figure. It seems we ended up doing well. Having talked about this with my peers, our situation where I can work and provide enough, is generally outside the norm.

Most everybody I grew up with is not able to do that, and it's not always their lifestyle choices that dictate that either. I know plenty of people, not living big, having to really get after it to make ends meet. These are educated people, living very reasonably.

If the median income, as of 2004, is only 60K, we are losing serious ground on wages in general. That's the downward wage pressure in action right there.

Couple that with a weak dollar, high fuel costs driving up most everything, far more aggressive fees and taxes, and health care matters, and we see a middle class that just isn't anymore. Most of them still living that way, either hold one of the rapidly shrinking pool of middle class wage jobs, or is using their house as an ATM.

Our own situation really was like moving up to the next class bracket. We made it, but it was not easy. I can tell you, staying there, is getting pretty ugly. We are going to scale down our monthly nut, instead of both working and generally escalating the problem.

That same brother in law, who lived with us, and essentially helped us own our home, got help from us when it sold. We managed to get the deed to that house on a 15 year mortgage. (if you can do this, do it! It is so worth it.) We helped him buy a duplex and we will rent the other side of it soon, thus cutting our nut to perhaps a third of what it is right now.

Given the weak dollar and other factors, that's about right.

Maybe that's a step back down. All things considered, we would not have made that decision, given the same gains made in the 90's hold true. (they haven't)

These last 7 years have felt like waves crashing in, year after year. I've mostly been able to maintain my usual modest income gains, but they are not enough to counter all the costs and risk push we are seeing.

Many people I know have not had any real gains, and that again is what has pushed them to leverage the house value every few years. That's all gonna pop pretty huge too. Not sustainable, IMHO.

Sorry to ramble. I don't mind the step down. It's the smart move, all things considered. Think about this too. If it's cheaper to rent than own, and wage pressure, like the pressure we are currently seeing, continues to occur, what does that mean for the majority of home owners? Right now, given our situation, saving anything for retirement is just not possible. (again, we just don't live huge at all) The move to rent and be out of the city will permit that, and some travel, etc...

What does that mean for building wealth to funnel upward in general? How much exploitation can we bear before things break seriously enough to depress things huge?

I fear that happening, which is why we are gonna step away before real trouble hits. Lots of people are not going to either be able to make that choice, or won't for any number of reasons.

It's like a cycle. The New Deal times brought with it a lot of building and with that wealth. Seeing that, the GOP, opens it all up to raw exploitation. On a smaller scale, the 90's were a growth time, now it's exploitation time.

If it all cycles, it sucks, but is livable. If we stay stuck on the exploitation part of things, it won't be livable any more.

My entry level radio job in a union shop at a small AM in 1989: $8.04 hr.

An entry level radio job at a small AM in 2007: $8.00 hr.

Ouch!!

I was being paid more at KCYX in McMinnville doing Mid-days than at KCNR AM in Portland doing afternoon drive. (circa 1984)

My first job,washing dishes in a cafe at 60c per hour.

When I enlisted,I got the grand sum of $54 per month, but they threw in a lovely home, that I shared with about 59 other guys, and 3 lovely meals per day.

Wow, would I love to add to this in detail,, but I fear that my commentary would make missings previous posting seem like a short paragraph.

Simply, My father died my last day of high school.
I had a job paying 2.50 an hour. with that I had a new car, and an apartment. I used my savings to go to broadcasting school which was a whopping 1100.00 in 1975. by 1980 I bought a house in Tacoma. for 32,000.00 By 1988 I had two degrees and NO STUDENT debt. My wife had 5 years in school, a Bachelors and a few thousand in loans which were paid off by 1990. We as a couple have never made more than 35,000 in a year.... this year will be about 25,000. Yet my house is free and clear... some repairs needed, and the cars are iffy, but the bank can't take any of them

Now kids get out of school buried in debt. My kid is 28, living at home has 35,000 in student loans
and is still two semesters short of a degree. He is maxed out so it's out of pocket to finish. He is a fantastic photographer, but because there is no money in that career, he drives a bookmobile 30 hours a week for 17 bucks an hour.

I truly believe that we have created a society where people spending their lives buried in debt is acceptable. Big business, government at all levels, and individuals now scratch for every last cent at any cost.

Just touching the tip here. Going in depth will just bore everyone.....