Can we get past how silly this argument is, and get back to how stupid it is for Democrats to raise taxes in a sagging economy according to the same theory that pushed the stimulolol?

Cool story bro. These markets are where rich people live.

No, goddamn it! I demand to be called upper middle class.

This reminds me of that UChicago professor who put out a piece about how his $400k didn't make him rich these days, and then listed off his expenses like you're doing.

Sure, when you're paying for $800k houses, two fancy cars, private schools, savings, etc., you won't be taking home much to....to.....what exactly were you going to do with the remainder there, anyway?

These are things that rich people can buy. They can afford to get nicer things, and so they do. That doesn't mean they aren't rich.

You'd rather trade one dumb talking point for another?

lol

Yeah unfortunately much of the public attention towards these people has been just as childish as their misguided outbursts. The Todd Henderson guy didn't realize the national uproar his little article would create and subsequently took it down. Brad Delong, douchebag extrordinare and Krugman's cheerleader grabs it from Google-cache and hosts it on his own site while making fun of the guy. How do these professional economists take themselves seriously? Like do they really sit together at lunch and joke about how much of a dick they were to some guy on the internet?

All the while their commenters engage in mutual masturbation about how apparently evil these rich people are. How about the argument that while they make 5x the median income they pay extraordinarily higher real amounts of taxes. This whole marginal tax rate argument is stupid and just indicative of the current R/D controversy but it still infuriates me that these ****ing people don't seem to at all have a problem with taking people's money.

Is there at some point a level where morally, even daily kos reading liberals will say, hey its probably not fair to keep taking their money when they're a minority and don't have much of a say in it (ACists need not apply for this question AFAIK). Is it okay to take >50% of someone's income even if they make a ton? That liberals never mention this issue says a lot, imo.

FWIW DeLong only responded because he had linked to someone's response to the post, and then Henderson called him out by name. So he felt the desire to respond at length.

But I'm pretty sure the fact that people making a half million dollars a year don't feel particularly rich is actually something that's pretty important to most economists.

Was it appropriate for him to re-host the guy's cached site after the guy deleted the post from his website on the basis that his family was receiving death threats (albeit likely unserious ones)?

Dude this is what i do for a living across the freaking country (real estate)! lol at you questioning this and going to statistics and picking an area that includes something like 30 zip codes. Ever hear of real estate is about location? You picked an area that encompasses a lot of different geography. Are we calling a renovated 1br and 2br apartment turned into a condominium a home now? Those are included in that median figure. I thought we were talking about houses.

A median income of $110k can't support that median home price btw. An income of $110k can afford about a $325k home, higher with bigger down payment.

but let's just take San Diego or San Fran or New York City for examples versus where i am located Dallas, Tx. In a suburb of Dallas with less than 20min commute i can build a home for about $100/SF and i can buy a lot for $40-80k or so. So for a 2500 SF home (not big really even for starter homes now but whatever) my cost in it will be $300k. I mark it up say 15% plus 5% commissions so the total cost is $360-400k or so.

I can take that same house and go to markets in San Diego, San Francisco, New York and tons of other places with that commute and the following happens:

Cost to Build: $165/SF (yes the difference is huge and this varies)
Cost of Lot: $250K+++++ (good luck finding it)
20% Markup
Total: $800,000

It's the same house, same land size, same specs. You won't even find this mythical house there though. The lots are going for $350k to $600k because as you noticed the median price of an existing home (which is often a small dumper ranch) is high already and anybody in real estate with a brain is going to have the new home in the $1.4 range. So you end up with a supply and demand coefficient out of whack.

You can retort that they don't have to live there or near there and i would agree but then you end up commuting 2 hours plus a day. I did that. Sucks.

And everyone else's point is that these people have a choice. Brian J is right that living in San Francisco is super expensive; so, move to a cheaper house in the suburbs if you can't hack it. 2K a month on Acuras? wtf, there are ads on TV telling me I can lease a BMW or Lexus for like $400 a month. Go lease a Honda or something if your poor Acura-driving ass is having trouble paying the bills. Having a new car to drive at all is somewhat luxurious.

Jay's right.

The ability to own a home and lease two cars means something, though, doesn't it?

So what if $800K homes are hard to find in some markets? Owning real estate in NYC or San Diego (and large or otherwise desirable property too, since it's terrifyingly easy to find homes in those places for less than $800K) is exactly the sort of thing that rich people do. Rich people accumulate capital.

Of course, there are enough people making far in excess of $250K/year that maybe we want more words to differentiate the groups. But please, let's not argue that these guys are struggling *because* they own expensive homes, rent cars, support large families, and consume luxury goods.

If a person has to choose between commuting 3 hours a day and not saving any money then he isn't rich imo.

Obviously people making $250k are rich. Jesus Christ. Really, people making a lot less than $250k are rich too. For example, you can take that law profs rant that fly hated, sub out "250k" for "150k"; "gardener" for "doggy day care"; "Exeter" for "local elite private school"; "new Beemer" for "new Camry", etc., and it's still just a whine about not having enough cash to cover all the luxuries you want.

I would say you're rich if less than half (this number's pulled out of my ass a bit, but it's ballpark) of your disposable income is devoted to providing good-quality necessities, while the rest goes to luxury consumption (including saving for future luxury consumption). By that standard, an individual making $100k is rich, and a family making $150 or so is also rich.

"Upper middle class" is a bull**** term. It basically means rich people that the political classes like a lot.

I am not arguing that they are struggling. I am saying they are not rich because their financial status doesn't buy them any significant freedom from stress, the necessity to work, etc.

You find me one place in the US where a person has to make that choice and I will readily concede the argument.

You will fail.

Secretly, I'm trying to determine how many people this one hero would have to be supporting, and what sorts of things he is doing for them before this even gets close to making sense. (Renting them cars, paying $30K/year for the education, etc.)

Your entire political philosophy is based on being jealous of those who make more than you and trying to level the playing field. Sad way to live life imo

Being rich means never having to work?

$250K/year isn't enough to free a person from financial stress? Or are you transitioning to the argument that money doesn't buy health and happiness and therefore those with money cannot truly be said to be "rich".

oh dear

yup

If you don't have to work then you're certainly rich. It's not a necessary condition; obviously people can be rich and still need to work to meet their goals. 250k can be enough to free a person from financial stress, depending on their obligations. But for someone living in areas like Manhattan or SF or DC that income might not be sufficient to free family of 5 from financial stress.

By your definition pretty much no one is rich. Hence the expression "the lifestyle i have become accustomed to".

If i made a million dollars per year and bought a 20 million dollar "Cribs" house then i am obviously poor, right? Because i cannot retire without defaulting on the mortgage i have not freed myself from the necessity to work and freedom from stress etc.

No, my definition is more complicated than that, the luxury of goods consumed is factored in. Someone buying a cribs house is indeed rich if he is living a sustainable lifestyle, even if his monthly cash flow is break even.

Let's keep in mind that someone can very easily support a family of five while working in Manhattan for $250k/year with a commute of under an hour.

I don't say living in Manhattan because that's clearly an unnecessary luxury. And I imagine she's not sending her kids to private schools. Or buying a new Lexus for her husband every year. Or using gold leaf on the interior walls, for that matter.

Your position is insane.

Ughhh come on dude... just stop.