|
0 members (),
87
guests, and
33
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2 |
A generation ago, working-class parents spent slightly more time with their kids than college-educated parents. Now college-educated parents spend an hour more every day. This attention gap is largest in the first three years of life when it is most important. Because a generation ago, two incomes were not necessary for survival in a working-class family. Affluent parents also invest more money in their children. Over the last 40 years upper-income parents have increased the amount they spend on their kids’ enrichment activities, like tutoring and extra curriculars, by $5,300 a year. The financially stressed lower classes have only been able to increase their investment by $480, adjusted for inflation. And not coincidentally, working-class incomes have been stagnant for the last generation, whereas upper-class incomes have risen sharply over that same span. I think it's a matter of values and knowledge, not just income. As Brooks writes in his latest column "Why Our Elites Stink" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html , "I’d say today’s meritocratic elites achieve and preserve their status not mainly by being corrupt but mainly by being ambitious and disciplined. They raise their kids in organized families. They spend enormous amounts of money and time on enrichment. They work much longer hours than people down the income scale, driving their kids to piano lessons and then taking part in conference calls from the waiting room. Phenomena like the test-prep industry are just the icing on the cake, giving some upper-middle-class applicants a slight edge over other upper-middle-class applicants. The real advantages are much deeper and more honest." A long NYT article illustrates what Brooks is talking about, although the married couple profiled is middle class. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.htmlTwo Classes, Divided by ‘I Do’ By JASON DePARLE July 14, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Many of the white collar workers I know, working in finance, technology, and pharmaceutical companies (I'm in MA) do a substantial amount of their work at home. Doctors have done so for a long time when they are "on call", and nowadays they use online programs to access patient records, make notes, and order prescriptions. I do a significant amount of my work from home, too. As an IT worker, I'm often called upon to respond to issues or to introduce changes at odd hours, so I do that from home. But for 40 hours a week, my employers want me present. In this way I would be counted among the statistics that measure telecommuting trends, yet I'm still commuting in the physical sense as well. Any statistics depicting national trends on telecommuting are loaded full of people like me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
[/quote]
I do a significant amount of my work from home, too. As an IT worker, I'm often called upon to respond to issues or to introduce changes at odd hours, so I do that from home. But for 40 hours a week, my employers want me present. In this way I would be counted among the statistics that measure telecommuting trends, yet I'm still commuting in the physical sense as well. All my people fit in this boat. I don't need 40 hours of face time but 16 hours is nice. IMHO people with set tasks are more efficient working from home and they are a lot less stressed with conflicting family and work priorities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
And my point is that most people do not have those same options. You do, sure... but you're not working-class. ... It's a lot easier to justify relocation costs for a lawyer's salary than a schoolteacher's. On the contrary, for people who make less money, the difference in moving to a new location with lower taxes and costs of living are very significant. A move often increases disposable income by 100 to 200%. A few extra $K a year is a HUGE difference to "working class" people. Not to mention better environment for their families.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
Working-class people often have stronger ties to an area, though. Their whole families may still live in the same town, or just about. It's a big step to leave that family love and support and what is often the only place you've ever really known. Family may also be providing free childcare and babysitting and other support, or you may need to stay there to provide care for aging family members. We aren't all scot-free to move about the country as needed. As I said earlier, we intentionally chose an area with a low cost of living, but our parents live far away (in high COL areas) and have been unable to help care for our kids. As they age, they may need us, which may present some major logistical problems (and possibly financial ones). There's been an emotional cost as well--the kids don't know their grandparents very well.
Last edited by ultramarina; 07/16/12 08:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
On the contrary, for people who make less money, the difference in moving to a new location with lower taxes and costs of living are very significant. A move often increases disposable income by 100 to 200%. A few extra $K a year is a HUGE difference to "working class" people. Not to mention better environment for their families. 1) People who make less money can ill afford the relocation costs, which would eat up the entire "few extra $K" for the first year up front. 2) Disconnecting people from their local support systems can introduce new costs that eat up the perceived savings. For instance, that few extra K could end up going to child care expenses, because grandma's not around to do it for free. 3) "Better" is a subjective term.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 224
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 224 |
On the contrary, for people who make less money, the difference in moving to a new location with lower taxes and costs of living are very significant. A move often increases disposable income by 100 to 200%. A few extra $K a year is a HUGE difference to "working class" people. Not to mention better environment for their families. 1) People who make less money can ill afford the relocation costs, which would eat up the entire "few extra $K" for the first year up front. 2) Disconnecting people from their local support systems can introduce new costs that eat up the perceived savings. For instance, that few extra K could end up going to child care expenses, because grandma's not around to do it for free. 3) "Better" is a subjective term. Another point that seems to have been missed is that for some professions, it doesn't matter where you live: the jobs just aren't there. For example, two years ago, the unemployment rate for architects hovered around 70% according to the AIA. Bob the Architect could move from Utah to Iowa to Florida to Maine (assuming he wanted to and could pay for new licenses each time), and it wouldn't do him a bloody bit of good.
"I love it when you two impersonate earthlings."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 282
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 282 |
And not coincidentally, working-class incomes have been stagnant for the last generation, whereas upper-class incomes have risen sharply over that same span. This only considers take home pay, not total cost to employer. I can't place the source right now, but the total cost to employer has actually increased faster than inflation when considering the increased cost of benefits, particularly health care. In effect, working class employees are taking higher pay and using it towards higher cost health care.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
This only considers take home pay, not total cost to employer.
I can't place the source right now, but the total cost to employer has actually increased faster than inflation when considering the increased cost of benefits, particularly health care. In effect, working class employees are taking higher pay and using it towards higher cost health care. I don't doubt that employment costs have increased faster than inflation, but how much faster? Employer-sponsored health benefits are being cut, so they provide less service and transfer more cost to the employee. Retirement costs are likewise being cut, as employers ditch defined-benefit programs. The bottom line is that, between flat salaries and declining benefits, the middle-class is effectively enjoying a reduced standard of living. Meanwhile, CEO pay has multiplied over the same period, and companies are currently posting record-breaking profits.
|
|
|
|
|
