How much you have to earn to be considered middle class in every US state

[UK2K]

http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-in-every-us-state-2015-4

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/551b2426eab8ea6d3c285bd1-538/middle-class-cutoff-table-1.png

Figured the upper bound of the middle class for a household would be much higher.

[RidonKs]

Figured the upper bound of the middle class for a household would be much higher.
yeah no kidding

thats a good graph. to be fair ppl on this site have told you in multiple threads over the past several weeks that average income in america has not kept up with productivity or inflation for decades now... you can even expand the sample from whatever was used for that chart to the 1st deviation normal distribution (or is that just what 'median' means?) and still find a) stagnation or b) outright regression

this shouldn't be a surprise overall.

though i will say that incomes in the deep south are startlingly low... $25-75k with a median of $37k? jeez man thats like $18.50 an hour. how can somebody start a family on that?

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Not really surprised. I know a few really rich kids from college who lived in the Maryland/DC area. It's known to have some really high end neighborhoods. New Jersey was kind of a surprise because at least to me, NJ is sporadic in terms of neighborhoods. Some are really wealthy, some are middle class, and some are lower class. The wealthy in NJ though tend to be really wealthy.

Northern NJ has some huge mansions in certain areas.

I guess it takes New York as a whole because I know upstate NY is a lot easier to live off of 60-70k than NYC and the Long Island/Westchester areas.

[ALBballer]

IMO middle class means being able to do the following:

-Support a family of four
-Able to afford to eat out out once or twice (sit down doesn't include fast food)
-Afford to buy a home (30 year mortgage assume)
-Afford to own two cars and buy new cars every 5-10
-Afford a 2-3 week vacation every year
-Buy occasional shit you don't really need (ie upgrade your phone every year or two, buy electronics, clothes, etc)
-Able to put away 10-20% of your salary towards retirement

If that is the case then the numbers seem about right other than a few cities like SF, NYC, DC, LA, etc.

[UK2K]

yeah no kidding

thats a good graph. to be fair ppl on this site have told you in multiple threads over the past several weeks that average income in america has not kept up with productivity or inflation for decades now... you can even expand the sample from whatever was used for that chart to the 1st deviation normal distribution (or is that just what 'median' means?) and still find a) stagnation or b) outright regression

this shouldn't be a surprise overall.

though i will say that incomes in the deep south are startlingly low... $25-75k with a median of $37k? jeez man thats like $18.50 an hour. how can somebody start a family on that?
No, I mean, I wouldnt think over 100k makes you upper class? That's after middle, right? So 100k as a combined household income? That's not all that much, and not that hard to attain between two people.

[RidonKs]

IMO middle class means being able to do the following:

-Support a family of four
-Able to afford to eat out out once or twice (sit down doesn't include fast food)
-Afford to buy a home (30 year mortgage assume)
-Afford to own two cars and buy new cars every 5-10
-Afford a 2-3 week vacation every year
-Buy occasional shit you don't really need (ie upgrade your phone every year or two, buy electronics, clothes, etc)
-Able to put away 10-20% of your salary towards retirement

If that is the case then the numbers seem about right other than a few cities like SF, NYC, DC, LA, etc.
is all of that really possible w/ less than 50k? that would be surprising. american cost of living is very cheap tho

[NumberSix]

though i will say that incomes in the deep south are startlingly low... $25-75k with a median of $37k? jeez man thats like $18.50 an hour. how can somebody start a family on that?
You know what else is really difficult situation to support a family? If you're an aspiring entrepreneur starting a small business. A lot of new businesses fail. You know what happens when your business fails?

Say you've worked really hard for like 20 years. You've saved up maybe $400,000 and maybe were able to get a loan for another $300,000. $700,000 is a nice bit of money to start up a business. But what happens if your business just doesn't work? You've lost your life savings and are in debt. Starting a business is a big risk.

Now, your employees who bitch about their salaries, even though they chose to work there... what happens to them? Well, they lose their jobs and have to look for another one. Not fun, but they don't have their life savings and a large bank loan on the line. They aren't taking the kind of risks the business owner is. They certainly aren't entitled to the same kind of rewards.

If you're a good boss, if your business does really well, you might want to give your employees an increase, but if you've managed to earn massive profits, you've earned that for the kind of work and personal financial risks.

This society depends on people willing to take risks in order to prosper. The rewards need to be worth the risk, or people just won't bother taking the risk. That's what we are starting to see. Governments obsession with limiting the rewards to the point that only people who are already massively wealthy are willing to take risks. If you already have $100 million, what the hell do you care about a $5 million risk?

[RidonKs]

meh

bankruptcy law mitigates most of that

only thing he has to worry about is the transition from aspiring entrepreneur to failed entrepreneur

i have already addressed your other points in other threads. there is nothing about the modern industrial organization that remotely suggests the founder and owner should be rewarded more highly than others 'along for the ride'.

more often than not in today's world of conglomerates operating in hundreds of markets at once and intense monopolization and vertical integration, the most important pieces in a successful company are bygone products of employees who have worked there and then moved on.




edit:
You know what else is really difficult situation to support a family? If you're an aspiring entrepreneur starting a small business. A lot of new businesses fail. You know what happens when your business fails?

Say you've worked really hard for like 20 years. You've saved up maybe $400,000 and maybe were able to get a loan for another $300,000. $700,000 is a nice bit of money to start up a business. But what happens if your business just doesn't work? You've lost your life savings and are in debt. Starting a business is a big risk.

Now, your employees who bitch about their salaries, even though they chose to work there... what happens to them? Well, they lose their jobs and have to look for another one. Not fun, but they don't have their life savings and a large bank loan on the line. They aren't taking the kind of risks the business owner is. They certainly aren't entitled to the same kind of rewards.

If you're a good boss, if your business does really well, you might want to give your employees an increase, but if you've managed to earn massive profits, you've earned that for the kind of work and personal financial risks.

This society depends on people willing to take risks in order to prosper. The rewards need to be worth the risk, or people just won't bother taking the risk. That's what we are starting to see. Governments obsession with limiting the rewards to the point that only people who are already massively wealthy are willing to take risks. If you already have $100 million, what the hell do you care about a $5 million risk?
i'm slowly realizing how incredibly difficult it is to respond to your same point you make about everything no matter what subject, even with my variety of paraphrases and analogies and angles... i swear i am running out of new ways to rebut ur shit

[NumberSix]

meh

bankruptcy law mitigates most of that

only thing he has to worry about is the transition from aspiring entrepreneur to failed entrepreneur

i have already addressed your other points in other threads. there is nothing about the modern industrial organization that remotely suggests the founder and owner should be rewarded more highly than others 'along for the ride'.

more often than not in today's world of conglomerates operating in hundreds of markets at once and intense monopolization and vertical integration, the most important pieces in a successful company are bygone products of employees who have worked there and then moved on.
:wtf:

No, you don't get your $400,000 back. That's gone forever. But I guess that's just an insignificant detail when it's somebody else's money.

[RidonKs]

:wtf:

No, you don't get your $400,000 back. That's gone forever. But I guess that's just an insignificant detail when it's somebody else's money.
why should you get it back? you made a bad investment.

if i buy a boat and don't do good upkeep and it sinks, am i entitled to another boat to replace my sh!tty boat i didn't take proper care of?

what it does mitigate is entrepreneurial debt, which was something you emphasized.

[KingBeasley08]

Maryland :pimp:

Shout out to Northern Virginia as well. We doin' work out there :rockon:

[NumberSix]

why should you get it back? you made a bad investment.
You shouldn't. It's a big risk. As I just explained, the average person isn't going to take that kind of risk unless the potential reward is worth it.

What you want is all risk, little reward. You think people should just be super nice guys and spread the reward out evenly because..... :confusedshrug:

Your idea of economics is, if your business fails, fcuk you. If your business succeeds, give half to the government, take a small cut for yourself and give away the rest to the people you've already paid because, don't be greedy bruh.

You're living in a hippie fantasy world.

[RidonKs]

i object even to the very notion that it's YOUR business

if i work there and contribute to its success in meaningful ways, i have just as much right to call it MY business. though not according to the law. but who wrote the law?

[NumberSix]

i object even to the very notion that it's YOUR business

if i work there and contribute to its success in meaningful ways, i have just as much right to call it MY business. though not according to the law. but who wrote the law?
Lol. A communist reveals his true colors. :roll:

[RidonKs]

Lol. A communist reveals his true colors. :roll:
colour is irrelevant we are all shades from The Same Great Peach

[sundizz]

Honestly, that graph shows absolutely nothing. It should show it by population density or some other better statistic than "state". California is so huge and you can't compare people living in San Francisco to people living in Riverside (a shitty place east of Los Angeles) or some other awful place.

That said, that graph seems about right for the useless point it is trying to make.

Also, as someone that is from Silicon Valley and intimately familiar with startups NumberSix you are an absolute idiot.

If you need $700,000 to start a business (or even think that is how a business begins) you are a complete idiot. What you are talking about is starting a restaurant or some other fool hardy idea that worked in the 70's and 80's.

Also, yes bankruptcy law does mitigate that in the fact that your debt gets cleared out. Certain types of debt (e.g., student loans, etc) don't get cleared out.

Also, dummy you are not in debt, you just lost your money (if you did an absolutely terrible job).

And way more importantly, being a business owner is not something the average person should aspire to. It's something extraordinarily confident, resourceful and well connected people should aspire to.

Let's take a very simple example:

700k to start with

Restaurant finances (monthly):
- Income $23,400 a month (60 people/day, $15 spent per day, 26 days)
- Expenditures $28,000 a month
- You of course work at the restaurant, and pay yourself $4,000 a month.
- You are losing $4,600 a month

Let's say you spent $400,000 to get everything up and running. This leaves $300,000 in the bank. At the rate of -$4,600 and +$4,000 you are a net -$600 loss. This means you could theoretically run this business for 41 years before you run out of money. And at that time you can STILL SELL the BUSINESS and come out with a little cash.

So, summarily, you get to run a business for 41 years doing something you love, you still earn $4,000 a year and you come out on top at the end if you picked a good location/etc.

In what world is this a bad life? Just because you don't get rich doing it?

The difference between people that live life well (in material terms) is this scarcity mentality. There is always money and the repercussions (except your own insecurity/fear of people seeing you fail) are very very minimal. There has never been an easier time to pick yourself up from having no money.

[ALBballer]

is all of that really possible w/ less than 50k? that would be surprising. american cost of living is very cheap tho

Probably not. I should of clarified the figures for upper middle class is doable.

[RidonKs]

Probably not. I should of clarified the figures for upper middle class is doable.
that's about right. to live comfortably with the criteria you listed, i think it would take at minimum $75k in a household. that even seems like a low estimate, especially factoring childrens activities which you didn't list plus some tuition fees so your kid doesn't go into too much debt... another one is upgrading your infrastructure, your house, moving to a new house, etc... all supposedly a part of the mythical american middle class experience :lol

[bballnoob1192]

hmmmm............the 5 mile radius of where i live. the avg household income is almost 80k and i live in california. so on average we be ballin

:banana: :cheers: :djparty :dancin :rockon: :banana: :djparty




lol JKing. Im sure this is a lot less than other places.

[falc39]

i object even to the very notion that it's YOUR business

if i work there and contribute to its success in meaningful ways, i have just as much right to call it MY business. though not according to the law. but who wrote the law?

Why don't you just start your own business?

[RidonKs]

Why don't you just start your own business?
i intend to

[Heavincent]

i object even to the very notion that it's YOUR business

if i work there and contribute to its success in meaningful ways, i have just as much right to call it MY business. though not according to the law. but who wrote the law?

lol what the **** is this?

[UK2K]

i object even to the very notion that it's YOUR business

if i work there and contribute to its success in meaningful ways, i have just as much right to call it MY business. though not according to the law. but who wrote the law?
So... someone starts a business with their own personal investment and takes all the risk, and because they hire me, its somehow mine now too?

:confusedshrug:

Well, shit, Im walking into the CEO's office right now, because I think I can run this company better... and since technically according to you, its kind of mine too, he needs to sit there and listen.

I'll let you know how it goes.

[rufuspaul]

As a business owner I learned a long time ago that good employees are a necessity but the only irreplaceable member of the team is me. I've had employees who do their job well but start to feel more and more entitled, to the point where they make unreasonable demands and threaten to leave if they don't get what they want. When I first started out I would generally cave in to these demands for fear of losing a good employee. This left me with a sense of resentment and gave the employee empowerment to come up with new demands. Eventually I learned that if someone thinks the grass is greener on the other side then let them go. I don't get a lot of turnover (cuz I'm such a nice guy to work for :D ) but each time it happens it turns out to be a positive in the long run. I realize that a lot of my success is contingent on the work of my employees and I reward them for it, but in the end the business is my baby.

[Thorpesaurous]

As a business owner I learned a long time ago that good employees are a necessity but the only irreplaceable member of the team is me. I've had employees who do their job well but start to feel more and more entitled, to the point where they make unreasonable demands and threaten to leave if they don't get what they want. When I first started out I would generally cave in to these demands for fear of losing a good employee. This left me with a sense of resentment and gave the employee empowerment to come up with new demands. Eventually I learned that if someone thinks the grass is greener on the other side then let them go. I don't get a lot of turnover (cuz I'm such a nice guy to work for :D ) but each time it happens it turns out to be a positive in the long run. I realize that a lot of my success is contingent on the work of my employees and I reward them for it, but in the end the business is my baby.


I don't own a business, but I work for a small business, 30ish people, and I'm involved in management.

I've come to learn over the years, that yes, most employees, even good ones, are replaceable. But there are key people, who while replaceable, are so ingrained in the production process, that it won't be pleasant. And I've found that by recognizing those people, and not necessarily financially, but by including them in business wide conversations, even if you're not really taking their opinion with much value (although I find that even if you do go into a meeting like that, you very well may change your mind if they make enough sense), you can keep that employee happy without having to eventually see crazy demands.

We did lose a really valuable guy last year to the crazy demand scenario. He was young and talented as a machinest, which is rare these days. But he just kept coming back and asking for more. He had another offer, and weather it was what he told us it was, I don't know, but we told him to take it.

[rufuspaul]

I don't own a business, but I work for a small business, 30ish people, and I'm involved in management.

I've come to learn over the years, that yes, most employees, even good ones, are replaceable. But there are key people, who while replaceable, are so ingrained in the production process, that it won't be pleasant. And I've found that by recognizing those people, and not necessarily financially, but by including them in business wide conversations, even if you're not really taking their opinion with much value (although I find that even if you do go into a meeting like that, you very well may change your mind if they make enough sense), you can keep that employee happy without having to eventually see crazy demands.

We did lose a really valuable guy last year to the crazy demand scenario. He was young and talented as a machinest, which is rare these days. But he just kept coming back and asking for more. He had another offer, and weather it was what he told us it was, I don't know, but we told him to take it.

Good point.

[UK2K]

As a business owner I learned a long time ago that good employees are a necessity but the only irreplaceable member of the team is me. I've had employees who do their job well but start to feel more and more entitled, to the point where they make unreasonable demands and threaten to leave if they don't get what they want. When I first started out I would generally cave in to these demands for fear of losing a good employee. This left me with a sense of resentment and gave the employee empowerment to come up with new demands. Eventually I learned that if someone thinks the grass is greener on the other side then let them go. I don't get a lot of turnover (cuz I'm such a nice guy to work for :D ) but each time it happens it turns out to be a positive in the long run. I realize that a lot of my success is contingent on the work of my employees and I reward them for it, but in the end the business is my baby.

You are only worth what someone is willing to pay you.

That's true no matter where you work.

What min wage pushers dont understand.

[GimmeThat]

I don't own a business, but I work for a small business, 30ish people, and I'm involved in management.

I've come to learn over the years, that yes, most employees, even good ones, are replaceable. But there are key people, who while replaceable, are so ingrained in the production process, that it won't be pleasant. And I've found that by recognizing those people, and not necessarily financially, but by including them in business wide conversations, even if you're not really taking their opinion with much value (although I find that even if you do go into a meeting like that, you very well may change your mind if they make enough sense), you can keep that employee happy without having to eventually see crazy demands.

We did lose a really valuable guy last year to the crazy demand scenario. He was young and talented as a machinest, which is rare these days. But he just kept coming back and asking for more. He had another offer, and weather it was what he told us it was, I don't know, but we told him to take it.

I think that, if I may, to pin point to what your management style may prohibit to the size of the company.

Goals.

And I mean that in a way when you say 'the key people who are so ingrained with the production process, that it won't be pleasant when you replace them'

I think that on a lower staff level, this probably doesn't really matter. But on a management level, even with defined roles, with everyone having different and particular ways to go at things, letting those company wide staff understand that promotion possibilities exist, can be quite crucial to ones development. And that to me involves setting goals of what each positions ought to meet, even at the early stage of planning.

And before one were to criticize and be caution about the fact that some companies management staff do become too goal oriented, that the turn over rate becomes undesirable. It is probably important to revise your goal to your currently employed personnel, aka, the inclusion of what makes them so irreplaceable to be well known, all while attempt to remove the possibility of bias.

After all, if one had to play favoritism, it is better to include medal.

'why be a mid sized company if you can be on the upper larger end?
because its better off having a large sum of outsourcing on your balance sheet, than having large debt with limited differentiation that may grow exponentially'


No, I am not an accountant

[RidonKs]

So... someone starts a business with their own personal investment and takes all the risk, and because they hire me, its somehow mine now too?

:confusedshrug:

Well, shit, Im walking into the CEO's office right now, because I think I can run this company better... and since technically according to you, its kind of mine too, he needs to sit there and listen.

I'll let you know how it goes.
no i'm not talking about the law

i'm talking about success factors and basic fairness. if you break it down, it becomes clear that 'founders' are disproportionately rewarded.

or who knows maybe i'm a lunatic suggesting the latest burger flipper at mcdonalds should be raised to high level executive and awarded a seven figure salary....

this is just the capitalist ethic. it isn't all bad of course. when you isolate the profit motive in a single agent, you can predict his actions for one thing. but its just a remarkable system for sniffing out inefficiencies in the society. for the right price somebody will come along with a fix... usually.

nevertheless that isolation does not reflect our actual social lives. there is an inherent contradiction between the values we feel with friends and family in our best of times, and the values we profess in light of the free market.

it's not like you operate day to day attempting to maximize your market share of people willing to listen to you. or exchanging compliments with friends for mutual satisfaction. do you buy low and sell high at the dining room table when your kid asks for your fish stick?

or perhaps you do..

[RidonKs]

You are only worth what someone is willing to pay you.

That's true no matter where you work.

What min wage pushers dont understand.
ah so if, for whatever reason mind you, nobody is willing to pay me; i am thus worthless and by all rights should be left to die in the street

hell of a principle there man, i see you have been paying attention to the paul's

[UK2K]

ah so if, for whatever reason mind you, nobody is willing to pay me; i am thus worthless and by all rights should be left to die in the street

hell of a principle there man, i see you have been paying attention to the paul's

If you have no skill what so ever, as in, cant even cut and paste shit together or dig a ditch or answer a phone, society is probably better off without you, yeah.

Now special needs is different. If you have a special needs child (or adult) that can not work, that is one thing. If you are a grown ass, normal functioning man and just can't do anything well in life, you should probably just disappear.

That's called survival of the fittest. If a man came up to my door step and told me he could get a job, but he just doesn't want to, so hes going to sit there until I give him money, hes going to starve to death.

[UK2K]

no i'm not talking about the law

i'm talking about success factors and basic fairness. if you break it down, it becomes clear that 'founders' are disproportionately rewarded.

or who knows maybe i'm a lunatic suggesting the latest burger flipper at mcdonalds should be raised to high level executive and awarded a seven figure salary....

this is just the capitalist ethic. it isn't all bad of course. when you isolate the profit motive in a single agent, you can predict his actions for one thing. but its just a remarkable system for sniffing out inefficiencies in the society. for the right price somebody will come along with a fix... usually.

nevertheless that isolation does not reflect our actual social lives. there is an inherent contradiction between the values we feel with friends and family in our best of times, and the values we profess in light of the free market.

it's not like you operate day to day attempting to maximize your market share of people willing to listen to you. or exchanging compliments with friends for mutual satisfaction. do you buy low and sell high at the dining room table when your kid asks for your fish stick?

or perhaps you do..

You mean the ones who took 100% of the risk correct? They are disproportionately funded?

Im sorry, I just dont agree with any of that logic, whatsoever.

[NumberSix]

there is an inherent contradiction between the values we feel with friends and family in our best of times, and the values we profess in light of the free market.

it's not like you operate day to day attempting to maximize your market share of people willing to listen to you. or exchanging compliments with friends for mutual satisfaction. do you buy low and sell high at the dining room table when your kid asks for your fish stick?

or perhaps you do..
We are not talking about the value of people as people. You can't put on monetary value on what a human is worth.

We are talking about the value of the task that is being done and your ability to do that task.

Every NBA player has the same value as a human being. LeBron James isn't "worth" more than any other NBA player as a human being. However, his ability to do the task is worth more than the ability of other players.

[UK2K]

We are not talking about the value of people as people. You can't put on monetary value on what a human is worth.

We are talking about the value of the task that is being done and your ability to do that task.

Every NBA player has the same value as a human being. LeBron James isn't "worth" more than any other NBA player as a human being. However, his ability to do the task is worth more than the ability of other players.

Right.

But again, living comfortably is not a right. The ability to live comfortably is earned.

You don't get a new car and a nice place to live, just because...

[RidonKs]

You mean the ones who took 100% of the risk correct? They are disproportionately funded?

Im sorry, I just dont agree with any of that logic, whatsoever.
i am completely willing to step back and agree that the founder should be disproportionately compensated for his effort and his risk. i misspoke earlier, the proper thing to say was that everybody else is disproportionately underpaid. by virtue of the fact that we give absolute tyrannical powers to founders over their institutions...

and i do not use that word 'tyrannical' lightly either. that is the nature of the institution as its been designed.

[UK2K]

i am completely willing to step back and agree that the founder should be disproportionately compensated for his effort and his risk. i misspoke earlier, the proper thing to say was that everybody else is disproportionately underpaid. by virtue of the fact that we give absolute tyrannical powers to founders over their institutions...

and i do not use that word 'tyrannical' lightly either. that is the nature of the institution as its been designed.

Now that could be argued. How much 'company' does one walmart cashier own? They can be replaced, fairly easily, so its not like they are valued member of the company. What is their portion?

But then you go down that road of capping people's income. Putting a cap on how much profit a business can make. What happens if you have an awesome idea and in the third year, it really kicks off and you make 1000% more than you made the year before? The government going to come in and take your profits and redistribute them to your company.

I am willing to go to a profit sharing market, but if the company starts to fail, the employees have to fail too. Seem fair? Because if everyone is part of the company (in any round about way) then everyone needs to risk losing their profits, not just the owner.

What we need is more small businesses where people can pay what they want. Which further drives home my point of, if you dont like working for someone, work for yourself.

[KellhitEmup15]

Now that could be argued. How much 'company' does one walmart cashier own? They can be replaced, fairly easily, so its not like they are valued member of the company. What is their portion?

But then you go down that road of capping people's income. Putting a cap on how much profit a business can make. What happens if you have an awesome idea and in the third year, it really kicks off and you make 1000% more than you made the year before? The government going to come in and take your profits and redistribute them to your company.

I am willing to go to a profit sharing market, but if the company starts to fail, the employees have to fail too. Seem fair? Because if everyone is part of the company (in any round about way) then everyone needs to risk losing their profits, not just the owner.

What we need is more small businesses where people can pay what they want. Which further drives home my point of, if you dont like working for someone, work for yourself.

Yeah tI have my own youtube channel which has over 150,000 subscribers and I am also going to school. Hopefully my channel takes off. So I don't have to work under someone my whole life.

[NumberSix]

i am completely willing to step back and agree that the founder should be disproportionately compensated for his effort and his risk. i misspoke earlier, the proper thing to say was that everybody else is disproportionately underpaid. by virtue of the fact that we give absolute tyrannical powers to founders over their institutions...

and i do not use that word 'tyrannical' lightly either. that is the nature of the institution as its been designed.
That is simply not for you to decide.

Instead of me and you arguing how much Person A should pay Person B, how about we just let them have the personal freedom to decide that amongst themselves? I know you would personally prefer to control other people's lives, but a moral person would want people to have the freedom to make their own decisions and deals.

[UK2K]

Yeah tI have my own youtube channel which has over 150,000 subscribers and I am also going to school. Hopefully my channel takes off. So I don't have to work under someone my whole life.

And if you dont want to work for someone else, thats what you have to do. Think about it, when you work you are making SOMEBODY money.

Whether that somebody is you, or some CEO, is up to you.

Nowadays its just easier to bitch about how much someone else makes as opposed to striving to make as much as them by following their footsteps. I've never complained about a CEO's pay, nor have I ever complained about my pay. Its a matter of supply and demand, and demand says I (the quality of worker and the skills I have) am worth about X amount of dollars. I think that's fair.

And if I ever think I am worth more, and my company wont pay up, I will move somewhere else that will pay me what I think I am worth.

Its that simple.

[bdreason]

40k isn't middle class in California. No way.

[riseagainst]

im upper middle class.

:bowdown: