>the middle class is shrinki-
The middle class is shrinki-
Nolan King
Parker Wood
>rich
>150k
Nathan Brooks
>rich
>150k
Blake Cox
>rich households (> $150k)
lmao
Levi Gray
Bulbasaur a cute
Aiden Walker
not an argument
Jeremiah Hughes
>richest country in the world
>20% of it its very por
>majority earns less than 75.000
shithole, third world country with a gucci belt and nukes
Henry Howard
Great, now show this chart in relation to current housing costs, rent prices, college tuition, food costs, et cetera.
Gabriel Morales
Misleading data, largely explained by women entering the workforce which masks the real decline in wages and standard of living - that used to be possible on a single wage. The 150K is the combined wage with women in the workforce.
In addition, he is using "official" inflation figures/CPI. Need I say any more.
tl;dr bullshit misleading graph
Luis Campbell
I thought everyone was a poor loser, right /bizpol/? Everyone is a virgin poor loser like us.
Oh wait, inflation adjusted data shows a shit ton of households EASILY clearing 200k yearly. And /bizpol/ still thinks they’re going to get a 150k 4 bedroom house lmfao. The train has left the stations you fucking losers, if you’re not pulling 400k you’re not going to be an elite. It’s that simple, Stacy and Chad both have 6 figure WFH jobs in 2022.
Carson Sullivan
>Implying 150k is not rich is not an argument
>Why?
>Just because it isnt ok?
Excuse me nigger, are you stupid?
Luis Sullivan
Have you considered that your mental model of what it means to be poor might be skewed?
Adam Harris
>very poor
they have cars and rental homes.
Ethan Rogers
150k is lower middle class, not rich, where have these fuckers been for the last 3 years? You can't even buy a house on that income.
Ryder Baker
OP btfo
Carson Williams
>Median
kek
Parker Campbell
Please stop using whatever overpriced hellhole you live in as a reference point for the rest of the world. I make $50k in the US and had no issue getting a house
Lucas Nguyen
Isaiah Ross
Median seemed more applicable to me, but if you'd prefer to use average, I don't feel like it diminishes my point
Henry Clark
>Average
top kek
try Mode
Ethan Ortiz
Actually, it's likely to be misleading in the opposite direction. The chart used household income. Households have fewer members than they did. Per capita income has increased even more.
Cameron Hall
Can't easily find that chart, feel free to drop it yourself
Josiah Kelly
Generally only the father/mother in the household are working, not the dependents in the house.
In 1967, there would have been significantly more single-earner households. Women entering the workforce would have doubled the amount of income significantly which tipped many more into the 150K category, masking the standard of living decreases.
The fact that there are fewer people living in homes is irrelevant because most children are not working. The only reliable metric as wage earners is the father and mother.
Jace Cooper
Hm, I dunno, the other dude seems to be right about per capita rising