Author Topic: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan  (Read 8810 times)

Sid888

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
"Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« on: February 24, 2015, 06:09:58 PM »
I ran across this article on vox.com today comparing two college articles on family income and wealth.  It had me thinking all day because I grew up lower middle class but now I would put myself into the HENRY (High Earner, Not Rich Yet) category.  I empathize with both Jesse (current life) and Jenny (former life) and I would love to raise my kids be both a little like Jesse and Jenny (and definately attend a college like the University of Michigan).  It seems like many folks on here are all struggling with making these positive changes in their family lives as their relative wealth grows so I'd be very interested in knowing how you feel about the subject matter of these articles.

Full Vox Article: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/24/8091973/middle-class-michigan-daily

Jesse: https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/02jesse-klein-relative-wealth16

Jenny: https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/jenny-wang-response-relative-wealth



If you want a good illustration of America's gaping class divides, look no further than the University of Michigan. In that school's newspaper, Michigan Daily, student Jesse Klein last week wrote a controversial op-ed about what she characterized as her family's modest means. Here's how it began:

    My family's household income is $250,000 a year, but I promise you I am middle class. I live in a $2 million dollar house, but I promise you I am still middle class. It has one story, doesn't have a pool or its own movie theater. It is a modest three-bedroom, two-bath.

Klein explained that her view on money changed when she got to college, as she found that Michigan residents spend differently from people in California, her native state — partly due to the cost of living, but partly because she thinks the people in Ann Arbor use money more as a status symbol.

The piece (judging from the comments section) elicited no shortage of outrage. But it also provoked a thoughtful response from another student, Jenny Wang. Her piece wasn't so much a takedown of Klein's op-ed but instead focused more what her experience with money has been, writing that Wang's mother earned $30,000 until being laid off, and now makes "an inconsistent $900 a month." In it, one sentence gets at perhaps the most important point about what it means to be rich or poor in America (emphasis mine):

    And that, I think, is my main point: how money gives people options. It sounds like such a cliché, but the thing to remember is that clichés originate from an experience that is true, regardless of how many times they are uttered ...

    I think it's important to keep in mind that there's a difference between having a family who needs to save some money here and there to afford an out-of-state school, and having a family who knows that the out-of-state institutions are not even up for consideration.

Wang is getting at something very important here — often we write (and think) about wealth or incomes in the abstract, just as how many zeroes are on a person's paycheck and what quintile of the income distribution that puts them in (are you a 1 percenter? 10 percenter?). Or we focus on what people are able to buy, like opulent homes or cars. But Wang is talking about perhaps the most important (and invisible) accessory that comes with wealth: opportunity. Poorer Americans disproportionately spend their money on necessities like groceries, as I found earlier this month, while the rich have more options of what to do with their money, and end up spending on luxuries and retirement accounts. Likewise, while richer kids may have had their pick of schools nationwide, Wang writes that financial aid and scholarships are what gave her the option to study computer science at the University of Michigan, located in her home town of Ann Arbor.

Wang's story squares well with something writer Linda Tirado told me last year about her former life below the poverty line:

    It's the question of startup capital, really: if you can spend your money up front in the right places wisely, then you'll save money in the long term. But if you're constantly struggling just to kind of patch it up and make ends meet, you're taking whatever the most convenient option is, which is inherently going to be more expensive.

Tirado was talking about investing in everyday objects like cars and groceries, but she may as well have been talking about education. It's less expensive right now for someone like Wang to work instead of going to college, but given the option, college is a far better long-term investment and puts a lower-income student in a far higher income bracket, as my colleague Libby Nelson recently wrote.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 06:39:41 PM by Sid888 »

act0fgod

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2015, 06:14:52 AM »
I feel Jesse isn't rich.  His/Her parents are rich.

I feel Jenny is not poor.  Her mother is poor.

Both these young adults are off on their own now.  Yes they are still connected to their parents and Jesse will likely have it "easier" due to connections from his/her parents but both of these individuals have good life prospects.  I'm glad I live in a country (yes I understand there are other countries as well) where an individual can improve their life if they have ability, motivation and drive.

We don't all start at the same place in the race but we have a chance to run.

Miss Prim

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 409
  • Location: Michigan
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2015, 06:21:08 AM »
I have not found this to be true at all!  I live in a suburb outside but close to Ann Arbor.  My son worked for a property management company cleaning out apartments after students had left and the out of state students would leave all of their clothes, computers, furniture etc behind when they got on the plane to go home!  They were the rich people who could walk away from all of this stuff.

The local students don't have that kind of money to burn.  My son-in-law went to U of M and his family is a typical Midwest family who live in a modest 3 bedroom house and saved to send him there.  I don't know who she is meeting at U of M, but honestly the kids with money to burn are the out of staters. My son-in-law sold his collection of music CD's over his 4 years there to have some spending money to go out once and awhile. 

Sure there are people with money in Ann Arbor, but there are many more who are just getting by. 

                                                                                        Miss Prim


GoldenStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Location: Washington, DC
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2015, 06:30:31 AM »
Thanks for the post.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2015, 06:46:12 AM »
Thoughts on Jessie:  We all know that housing is incredibly expensive in California, but perhaps -- given that she's young/naive/not yet a homeowner herself -- it was news to her.  I agree that she isn't rich, but her parents are.  She may claim that she's "middle class", and her parents may have raised her with middle class values and may have purposefully given her less than they could afford to do, but she is NOT middle class.  Her family earns a million dollars every 4 years.  Even if they don't spend it, they have it upon which to fall back. 

Thoughts on Jenny:  She's the more insightful of the two.  She's totally right when she says that money = opportunities.  Families with money can choose to provide their children with all the "right experiences", including the college of their choice.  She's also right when she says that because she is low income (NOT middle class), she is fortunate to have reaped the benefit of scholarships and financial aid. 
I have not found this to be true at all!  I live in a suburb outside but close to Ann Arbor.  My son worked for a property management company cleaning out apartments after students had left and the out of state students would leave all of their clothes, computers, furniture etc behind when they got on the plane to go home!  They were the rich people who could walk away from all of this stuff.
Yeah, back in college I was an RA, so I was the last person to move out of my dorm floor every year.  Because our university was less expensive than their in-state schools, we had LOTS of out of state students -- most of them from the Northeast.  I used to get TONS of stuff when they moved out:  canned food, kitchen items, towels, etc.  Occasionally even dorm refrigerators, textbooks, bookbags, and calculators.

However, I lived with these people for a whole year before they moved out and left this stuff, and most of them were decidedly NOT rich.  Most of them abandoned stuff because they couldn't get it home.  Most of them came to school in the fall in the family car, and they had as much stuff as the trunk could hold.  Once they arrived, they shopped for towels, rugs, lamps -- and then at the end of the year, they couldn't fit it all back into the trunk.  Their parents weren't going to make a second trip for the sake of saving laundry baskets, so they dumped it all. 

In contrast, I lived an hour away.  I could afford to make the drive more than once.  Big difference. 

My daughter's university is wiser than we were "back in the day".  They have a spot for kids to dump stuff in the dorms, and they save it all . . . and have a big "back to school sale" for the kids the following fall.  Everyone wins:  Exiting students don't have to feel bad about abandoning their water bottles and lamps, new students can buy these things at a discount, and nothing goes to the landfill. 

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2015, 06:47:26 AM »
The term "middle class" in inherently relative; it's comparing oneself to those around you and determining that you are in the 'middle'.
I have no doubt that a family earning $250,000 in Palo Alto (where Jesse is from) is decidedly "middle class" for that area.  I also have no doubt that Jenny's mother would be wealthy using almost any global standard.

In the end this argument boils down to what our expectations of "middle-class" ought to be.

happyfeet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2015, 06:51:17 AM »
My son sublet in a fancypants apt building in AA from an out of state student that had graduated/moved out.  The stuff they left behind was incredible.  Kruerig coffee maker, knives, dishes, pots, pans, decorative items, Timberland boots, and on and on.  They just left it all. Since it gets thrown out - son took most of it to start his apartment.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 06:53:09 AM by happyfeet »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2015, 06:59:38 AM »
I feel Jesse isn't rich.  His/Her parents are rich.

I feel Jenny is not poor.  Her mother is poor.

Both these young adults are off on their own now.  Yes they are still connected to their parents and Jesse will likely have it "easier" due to connections from his/her parents but both of these individuals have good life prospects.

Unless Jesse is paying her own way through college and not being supported financially by her parents, he/she is not on her own and continues to belong to the same class (lower upper in my opinion) as her parents.

Jenny is probably more independent in that she receives scholarships to attend college, but I'm not sure that necessarily catapults her into a higher class than her mother at this point.

Ultimately I would argue that a young person in college does belong to the same class as his or her parents. It is only after they he or she has established a position with stable income independent of the parents that a different class based on personal income becomes relevant.

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2015, 07:05:50 AM »
Thoughts on Jessie:  We all know that housing is incredibly expensive in California, but perhaps -- given that she's young/naive/not yet a homeowner herself -- it was news to her.  I agree that she isn't rich, but her parents are.  She may claim that she's "middle class", and her parents may have raised her with middle class values and may have purposefully given her less than they could afford to do, but she is NOT middle class.  Her family earns a million dollars every 4 years.  Even if they don't spend it, they have it upon which to fall back. 

This, times a million. I feel like this is what people keep missing when they try to say, "but I LIVE like I'm middle class! I SPEND like I'm middle class!" sure, but if you have a financial cushion that people who were truly making a "moderate" income for the U.S. would not be able to save up if they were spending at your level, it's not really the same thing.

also agree with dramaman, I doubt Jesse is completely financially independent at this point (Jenny may be), so you can't really decouple them from their parents yet.

aj_yooper

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • Age: 12
  • Location: Chicagoland
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2015, 07:13:10 AM »
Thanks for the links.  Gotta get to reading the Michigan Daily. 

I encountered the Jesse's of the world when I entered college and there really is a different world view, even if the the high SES students aren't into fashion or spendy ways.  They don't do summer jobs, they have adventures or they continue with academic pursuits.  They have effortless connections to advice and career steps and their families anticipate what they'll need and figure that out.  I also felt the shame that Jenny speaks of at the University, but never when I was growing up, as we were the norm, Yoopers, you know.  In college, I never felt poor, as I was a scholarship kid, just that shame feeling.  I met and heard of others way poorer so I considered myself pretty lucky.  We were able to upgrade our finances due to our educations, but the Jennys, I think, will have a tougher time in this economy than we did. 

The University of Chicago is attempting to mitigate the struggles of lower SES students by funding, not loans, the financial needs of students and adding mentoring and paid internships through the Metcalf initiative, c.f. https://careeradvancement.uchicago.edu/jobs-internships-research/metcalf-internship.  That is a great idea.

James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2015, 07:13:18 AM »
I absolutely agree with you, money gives options, and that is so often forgotten. It is forgotten by those who make a lot of money that they should be looking more closely at the options money provides for them and choosing more wisely. And it is forgotten by the who make less that those who are wealthy have to make choices from those options, money doesn't give a free ticket to a great life, it just gives more options to choose from. Better to be relatively poor and chose the better options you are limited to, than to be rich and make all the wrong choices...

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2015, 08:10:19 AM »
I'm glad I live in a country (yes I understand there are other countries as well) where an individual can improve their life if they have ability, motivation and drive.

We don't all start at the same place in the race but we have a chance to run.

I think its important to remember that the United States actually has quite low social mobility. The chances are in the US that if you're born poor you'll stay poor, as opposed to many of the western European countries with higher social safety nets and cheaper/free higher education.

jmusic

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Location: Somewhere...
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2015, 08:36:29 AM »
The term "middle class" in inherently relative; it's comparing oneself to those around you and determining that you are in the 'middle'.
I have no doubt that a family earning $250,000 in Palo Alto (where Jesse is from) is decidedly "middle class" for that area.  I also have no doubt that Jenny's mother would be wealthy using almost any global standard.

In the end this argument boils down to what our expectations of "middle-class" ought to be.

Besides that, the second you actually utter the words "I'm rich..."  people either look at you scornfully or stick their hand out.  It's becoming a four letter word.

James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2015, 08:49:35 AM »
I'm glad I live in a country (yes I understand there are other countries as well) where an individual can improve their life if they have ability, motivation and drive.

We don't all start at the same place in the race but we have a chance to run.

I think its important to remember that the United States actually has quite low social mobility. The chances are in the US that if you're born poor you'll stay poor, as opposed to many of the western European countries with higher social safety nets and cheaper/free higher education.

Correlation is not causation. Having higher taxes and lower economic vitality like like many of those countries do, has the opposite effect on social and financial mobility. Just depends on the personal situation which has a great effect or help. I haven't seen any study regarding which counties actually have the biggest movement in their society between upper and lower classes, but I imagine they are out there.

But either way, they didn't say other countries didn't have mobility or weren't even better, simply that they were glad to live in a country with those options. (As am I) Many live in countries with little to no social mobility options.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 09:05:41 AM by James »

aj_yooper

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • Age: 12
  • Location: Chicagoland
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2015, 09:23:37 AM »
Maybe not so much social mobility in the US compared to other nations.  Some info on social mobility by country:  http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

"Conventional wisdom holds that class barriers in the United States are the lowest among the world’s advanced economies. Motivating this belief is the notion that there is a tradeoff between market regulation and mobility; advanced European economies are characterized by higher taxes, greater regulation, more union coverage, universal health care, a more comprehensive social contract, etc. Because some see these policies and institutions as impediments to mobility, mobility is believed to be greater in the United States.""

They have a nice data set.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2015, 09:44:56 AM »
The article concludes by mentioning the lowest three countries (from the bottom up, Denmark, Norway, and Finland) but just above them are (again in ascending order) Canada, Australia, Sweden and New Zealand.  Interesting.  And interesting that all have socialized medicine, although I have no idea if this is any part of the cause.  Certainly Canada and Australia have large immigrant populations that do well.


Anecdote - years ago in NZ I met a young woman who had emigrated from Wales - she was doing well there but she found the class system very restrictive.  She was doing something totally different in NZ, and making less money, but she loved the egalitarian life-style.

Maybe not so much social mobility in the US compared to other nations.  Some info on social mobility by country:  http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

They have a nice data set.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2015, 09:54:37 AM »
The article concludes by mentioning the lowest three countries (from the bottom up, Denmark, Norway, and Finland) but just above them are (again in ascending order) Canada, Australia, Sweden and New Zealand.  Interesting.  And interesting that all have socialized medicine, although I have no idea if this is any part of the cause.  Certainly Canada and Australia have large immigrant populations that do well.


Anecdote - years ago in NZ I met a young woman who had emigrated from Wales - she was doing well there but she found the class system very restrictive.  She was doing something totally different in NZ, and making less money, but she loved the egalitarian life-style.

Maybe not so much social mobility in the US compared to other nations.  Some info on social mobility by country:  http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

They have a nice data set.

To clarify, when you say lowest you mean lowest elasticity which means higher social mobility. Scandinavia, Canada, Australia/New Zealand all have lower associations of parental income to child income. So basically your parents social class has less to do with your social class.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2015, 10:34:37 AM »
Exactly.  The graph towards the end of the article is quite clear.

Of 17 countries evaluated (all OECD countries), Denmark has the most mobility (correlation between father and son incomes = 0.15), Canada is 4th at 0.19, and the U.S is 13th at 0.47.

The article concludes by mentioning the lowest three countries (from the bottom up, Denmark, Norway, and Finland) but just above them are (again in ascending order) Canada, Australia, Sweden and New Zealand.  Interesting. 
Maybe not so much social mobility in the US compared to other nations.  Some info on social mobility by country:  http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

To clarify, when you say lowest you mean lowest elasticity which means higher social mobility. Scandinavia, Canada, Australia/New Zealand all have lower associations of parental income to child income. So basically your parents social class has less to do with your social class.

Sibley

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7428
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2015, 11:11:01 AM »
A note on my experiences in college. I went to a private college, so a good number of the students were from well off families. It was interesting though at the end of the year. There was definitely a ton of stuff abandoned. Each dorm would have a designated location for it, and you could go pick up stuff there. After all the students were gone, whatever was there was donated.

Freshmen and seniors were more likely to drop stuff off. I suspect that the freshmen's parents weren't aware of the habit, and some of them made it very clear that it wasn't allowable so less was dropped off (by some) in 2nd and 3rd years. However, there were some people who dumped a ton every year. There were also some people who never left things, or very rarely did. Seniors left things because they weren't needed (they thought at least) and it was easier to dispose of it then move it.

The ones who didn't leave stuff - came from a variety of backgrounds. It seemed to be more of a life-view than a money thing.

Personally, my parents decided to rent a small storage unit over the summer to store as much as possible locally. For several of the summers, either my sister or a friend also shared it, so the cost was more reasonable. But it made more sense then having to move it all, or replace it.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2015, 07:30:51 AM »
Thoughts on Jessie:  We all know that housing is incredibly expensive in California, but perhaps -- given that she's young/naive/not yet a homeowner herself -- it was news to her.  I agree that she isn't rich, but her parents are.  She may claim that she's "middle class", and her parents may have raised her with middle class values and may have purposefully given her less than they could afford to do, but she is NOT middle class.  Her family earns a million dollars every 4 years.  Even if they don't spend it, they have it upon which to fall back. 

This, times a million. I feel like this is what people keep missing when they try to say, "but I LIVE like I'm middle class! I SPEND like I'm middle class!" sure, but if you have a financial cushion that people who were truly making a "moderate" income for the U.S. would not be able to save up if they were spending at your level, it's not really the same thing.

also agree with dramaman, I doubt Jesse is completely financially independent at this point (Jenny may be), so you can't really decouple them from their parents yet.
Yes, it's often hard for college students -- being young and relatively naive -- to understand these things.  I know I didn't when I was that age. 

I was raised poor, but not typical poor:  We were first-generation poor, which is a world away from families who have always been poor.  My parents raised us with middle class values.  We saw our aunts and uncles working and reaping the rewards -- we understood that this was within our grasp.  We saw our grandparents retiring -- we understood that this, too, was within our grasp.  We definitely were raised to value education and work, which are perhaps the most important middle class ideals.  I'd say that's why 4 out of 5 of us have "overachieved" considering we were raised poor. 

But underneath, no matter what values may have been instilled in us, we were not really middle class.  We had nothing upon which to fall back.  Our parents couldn't pay for summer trips and educationally enriching opportunities, couldn't pay college tuition, couldn't buy us cars, etc. 

So, yeah, you can measure yourself by what you spend, or you can measure yourself by what you earn . . . but the line between the two is somewhat fuzzy.  And it's even more so for young people like Jenny and Jessie, who are not really any particular socio-economic class yet.   They aren't really inheriting their parents' social status -- we don't do that in America -- but they haven't yet established themselves yet either. 
I encountered the Jesse's of the world when I entered college and there really is a different world view, even if the the high SES students aren't into fashion or spendy ways.  They don't do summer jobs, they have adventures or they continue with academic pursuits.  They have effortless connections to advice and career steps and their families anticipate what they'll need and figure that out.
The concept of summer jobs is changing among college students -- and I think it has to do with the ease and acceptability of student loans.

When I was in college, EVERYONE worked in the summer.  EVERYONE.  As spring semester waned, people began to be concerned about where they'd work . . . and pretty much everyone went home over spring break to try to line up some type of a job.  Those who didn't have something promised by the time exams arrived were worried!  We all needed to go home and start working Monday after exams ended!  We worked all summer and didn't spend.  We needed that money. 

Today my daughter is a college student (in a state university equivalent to the one I attended, in the same state), and I'd estimate fewer than half of her classmates work during the summer.  Several of her 20-21 year old classmates have literally NEVER earned a dollar (aside from the occasional babysitting gig).  The drive to get a job and work during breaks just doesn't exist.  Yet most of them just "accept" student loans as inevitable . . . and they don't seem to "get" the connection. 
I think its important to remember that the United States actually has quite low social mobility. The chances are in the US that if you're born poor you'll stay poor, as opposed to many of the western European countries with higher social safety nets and cheaper/free higher education.
I don't think cheap/free higher education would make any difference. 

I teach high school, and the lines are fairly well drawn between rich and poor:  The kids from higher socio-economic households are in the upper level classes -- AP classes, Calculus instead of Foundations of Algebra, Honors English instead of Basic English, Physics instead of Physical Science.  Sure, we have kids in the lower level classes who could be successful in these upper classes, but they don't push themselves (and their parents don't push them) to excel academically. 

Yes, you can find examples of poor kids who are knocking the top off academically (I was one of those kids), but they are the exception, not the rule.  These kids do have a better chance at scholarships and financial aid, and that gives them a leg-up in the world.  You can also find examples of rich kids who are lazy or underachievers, and they're more numerous than the Horatio Alger examples . . . yet they do exist. 

The point:  If you were to provide cheaper /free university education, it wouldn't make a significant difference in the number of kids who would graduate and go on to break class boundaries. 
Personally, my parents decided to rent a small storage unit over the summer to store as much as possible locally. For several of the summers, either my sister or a friend also shared it, so the cost was more reasonable. But it made more sense then having to move it all, or replace it.
We did this for our daughter too.  She's two hours from home, and it made financial sense for us.  However, I don't personally know anyone else who made that choice -- and I don't know why. 

The things we stored didn't have great value:  Bedsheets and a large mattress pad, a lamp, a printer, winter clothing, a chair, some dishes, a broom, a small rug.  But hauling them back and forth from school would've required probably two more trips "up the mountain" in my small car.  Renting the storage building was kind of a break-even proposition for us.
 


« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 07:51:01 AM by MrsPete »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2015, 10:28:54 AM »
I think this whole debate can be reduced to the differences between being a rich person and spending like a rich person.

Jessie seems to think that her family isn't rich because it doesn't live a lavish lifestyle.  That's dumb.  I dont live a lavish lifestyle and I'm rich as hell.

Apples

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2015, 12:35:22 PM »
First off, I went to Michigan State, so Ann Arbor is a whore :p

Now that that's done:  I lived with a Jesse my freshman year of college.  She was from the suburbs of Detroit, parents both made $75,000-$100,000 a year at least, but she was completely middle class if you asked her.  Disregard all the Ralph Lauren, connections for internships, and ability to buy new $200 winter boots at the drop of a hat her entire life.  And whatever the clothes are with a crocodile on them.  My parents have a farm, and income jumped considerably when I hit high school, so my family could actually do all of those things (though we weren't clued in to that as kids, things just gradually changed over time).  But I was well aware we were not middle class.  I knew we lived modestly and weren't supposed to speak about wealth, but that we were well above average.  This girl lived in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house with a small yard.  Both parents had gym memberships they actually used.  They bought their groceries at Meijer.  They were normal.  But they had so. much. more. money.  And from what I can tell, most of the kids at her high school either lived exactly the way she did, or hid it well.  Over 90% went to a 4-year university, and I'm sure moms and dads were paying the bulk of it.  She didn't think her family spent on status symbols, but that was because the status symbols were built into their lives.  The nice house, good fancy clothes, and gym memberships are all status symbols.  I felt like quite the hick explaining how any "gym" would be 40 minutes away from my house, and I had never actually seen most of those clothing labels before.

My Jesse person was convinced there was no way to live a good life on less than 100k a year.  She graduated college and moved back into her parents' house, and is now applying to PA school.  I like to think that hanging out with me for 2 years as roommates may have opened her eyes a little.  I'm certain that spending the first year out of college earning $8 or $9 an hour as a secretary has realllly opened her eyes.  Although that's not even middle class, she had most of her expenses taken care of, so I like to think it's sort of a middle class amount of spending money.  People are sheltered growing up, but I think a lot of them figure it out in college and mid 20's.

In an interesting contrast, I had class with a lot of Jennys.  Horticulture majors are not known for raking in the dough, and aren't usually from higher class families.  In those situations, I was considered wealthy because I could afford to drive home for Christmas without worrying about paying for gas money (it was 550 miles).  I didn't have to count my dollars to go out with friends.  I think college opens up all of our eyes to how other people live.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2015, 02:15:16 PM »
I think a lot of the Jesse types really just don't know how good they have it.

They go to expensive colleges (Michigan is very expensive for out of staters).  They have cars, nice clothes, go out to dinner, don't have to work, fly to Florida for spring break.

For those of us who grew up working class and went to an expensive school (on scholarship), we walked everywhere, wore the same Walmart stuff we grew up with, ate Ramen for dinner 5 nights a week, worked during the summers and/or during the school year.  "Spring Break" for me meant a cheap Greyhound trip back home and 5 days trudging through the snow to work in the same restaurant I had worked in during HS.

I went to school with a lot of the upper middle class and rich kids.  They thought I was being anti-social when I wouldn't go out bar hopping on weekends (er, this was back when the legal drinking age was 18 :)   I don't think they realized I was down to my last few dollars and had to spend it on another carton of Ramen noodles, I couldn't afford expensive bar drinks.

The kids who had money may have felt "middle class" because they were driving Chevy's rather than Porsches, but they really had no clue how the middle class and poor lived.  This was 30 years ago, but I doubt much has changed since then.



nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2015, 02:43:49 PM »
I think this whole debate can be reduced to the differences between being a rich person and spending like a rich person.

Jessie seems to think that her family isn't rich because it doesn't live a lavish lifestyle.  That's dumb.  I dont live a lavish lifestyle and I'm rich as hell.
I want to be a millionaire ≠ I want to spend a million dollars.

people confuse having a lot of money with spending a lot of money.  To many, if you're not spending a lot of money you aren't rich.  Ironically, spending lots of money is what keeps one from becoming rich in the first place.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9923
  • Registered member
Re: "Relative Wealth" at the University of Michigan
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2015, 06:39:46 PM »
ability to buy new $200 winter boots at the drop of a hat her entire life.

Apple Bottom Jeans and the Boots with the Fur....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLwvc5Qywzk