Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
It considered 558,910 households. There were 129,765 one-person private households. So just over 75% with more than one person in the households. And yes, those households would include single parents - but it makes no sense to exclude them.
If you set up so narrowly that you're now pretty much excluding the entirety of the lower class, what's the point in trying to discuss class at all? I think everyone agrees that dual, full-time earners with either a valuable trade or post-secondary education can get over the $200,000 total income benchmark. If that's Oil Stain's argument, sure everyone agrees. That's not the point though, the point is only 16% of households do so. So we need to stop using qualifiers like "easily make over $200,000" because reality and stats don't back that up.
|
I was really more just pointing out that you can't define "class" by salary alone. Households are in different circumstances. So using a $200k household income to define whether someone is upper class or not isn't really all that fair. It's quite common for households with dual incomes to reach that level once their careers are going.