No, it was a pretty obvious boner. I mean, does “Tell the Stench that I’m having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan” sound like something that a real person, or even Paul Ryan, would say? Not to mention the following:
Anyway, on to the topic of the moment. Contra Jason et al. (when the alii include Houngan, Timex, and Wahoo you know we’re through the looking-glass here people), the term “middle class” has nothing at all to do with median income. Median income is just a mathematical identity while “middle class” is a qualitative concept. Every country in the world has a median income, yet not every country has what anyone would consider a middle class. For a site that skews as liberal as QT3 it’s actually kind of mind-boggling that so many people would not only accept, but actually argue for the idea that “middle class” == “pretty much whatever median income happens to be”.
Hugin
1683
As someone else said earlier, I assumed he was making snarky quips within the article, not that the entire article was a joke. Journalistically speaking I’m a big fan of marking satire as satire.
AlanC
1684
Mitt reboots his ad campaign. Face to face with Mitt (because America can’t get enough of his smugness):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HjDCHbtXHQ&feature=results_video
The democrats answer 30 seconds later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnR_BcvkuzY
See, that’s why it’s important to actually state what you’re objecting to. I don’t think saying “3 degrees from undergraduate school” is defensible, but that’s not what you posted earlier (which was where the “Based on what you’ve posted.” came from).
[/quote]
NONE of what he said was true… it’s totally insane.[/QUOTE]
It was 88… good drugs maybe? :)
Manresa
1686
Then again, satire should be funny.
SnowBlue
1687
I didn’t realize we only count married couples with two earners to determine median income. Median income for all families is $60k.
W_Wiley
1688
Really? A top of the line bass boat and the rig to tow it will cost a ton. Most of america is debt to there ass. It’s really just a matter or how much.
I didn’t state that because I thought it was fairly obvious that in an international context it didn’t apply. In the US market-heavy economy, however, it’s outlandish to say that median income has no relationship to class definition. What else would it be?
If you don’t adjust median income for cost of living–which no one here did–then you’re using bullshit numbers.
Again, if you live in St. Louis or Kansas City and you and your wife make $100k between the two of you, you’re doing very well. If you live in other areas of the country–usually on the coasts–it’s probably difficult if not impossible for you two to afford a house.
LMN8R
1691
If the Mitt Romney who passed and thoroughly endorsed Romney care, was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and other such issues was running for President, I’m sure a lot of liberals and moderates would be thrilled to vote for him. Unfortunately, that’s obviously not the Mitt Romney running today.
Pretty much this. I make in the 50-60K-year range. I live in Ballard, a a nice neighborhood of Seattle. I rent one part of a little duplex. There is no way I could afford a house around here without moving to a place with a 45+ min commute, if even then.
That said, I do consider myself middle-class. Perhaps I’m delusional.
Ballard is in the top tier of desirable Seattle-area neighborhoods; average household income for the area is $91,500. That’s higher than Redmond 98052, home of Microsoft.
No one forces people to live in high cost of living cities. Living in a high-demand low-supply desirable area is just as much a consumption good as buying a nice car.
Wait, what? That’s completely absurd. That assumes a person with a set of skills has equal mobility with regards to employment choices independent of city of residence. That’s beyond laughable.
This is where my job is, and after having a 20-year career with the same company terminated with just a few months notice last year, I feel very lucky to have it.
Your smugness on this, however, is duly noted.
Indeed. Laughable and kind of repugnant.
Yes, pointing out the completely obvious is mean now, apparently. I’m sorry you lost your job, but the US economy has been designed for around a century to implicitly force people to move in response to employment and land use patterns.
Try being 45 and having your career suddenly come to a point of reckoning not of your own choosing. Adds a ton of perspective about holding onto a decent job (and the pursuant benefits) like grim death.
Yes, and? If you want to save money, you move. This is the consensus, motherfucker, US political position, which we venerate along with motherhood, free market, and apple pie. If you want a society that venerates a lack of chaos you’ll have to move to Europe.
I’ve been thinking about this a bit lately and I’ve got to say, it really does work from both ends. No repub running at the middle at this point can survive the primary, and that, perhaps, is Mitt’s problem (and McCain’s before him). He wants to run on his record (healthcare, etc.), but can’t, so he’s being forced to say whatever it takes to get the base to vote for him.
On the flipside, I’d like someone a whole lot left of Obama, but such a person can’t survive the primary. What’s different, though, is that we learned our lesson with Gore. Hold your nose, and make incremental gains. The right has been doing it for 30 years (until the Tea Party got out of control). Time to make up some lost ground.
