BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

F*O*A*D

On 10/2/14 6:44 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:59:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 4:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate
meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily
definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical
differences.

Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in
the same area.
A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of
unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too
much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed
money.
It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are
carrying the bank around on your back.

A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said,
if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford
to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect)
If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away,
you can pay cash.

That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card.

I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the
definition of the "middle class."

Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of
life.

A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor
can be rich making 80.

The problem is defining the quality of life implicit in the term "middle
class." It is impossible to quantify with consensus.

For something you can't define, you certainly have no problem talking
about how badly they are doing.

You can't have it both ways.

You're the one using obsolete terms. I'm the one saying we need
different measuring sticks and descriptors. I went to college and paid
attention in stats 101 and 102.