working class

[Diane Monaco]

At 05:49 PM 6/29/2002 -0700, Joanna wrote:
>At 01:14 AM 06/29/2002 -0400, Brad wrote:
>>Let me enunciate as gospel the rule-of-thumb that Bob Litan and I
>>agreed on: that more than 3 times your current consumption level
>>strikes you as absurd and wasteful luxury. The median family income
>>in America today is going to be about $54,000 this year. Taking a
>>rough guess at the progressiveness of the tax code, you would need an
>>income of about $220,000 to get you to the point where, from the
>>perspective of the median, you are starting to buy stupid and
>>pointless luxuries that nobody really needs... That gets you down to
>>2% of families in the upper class.
>
>This is an honest question: why distinguish on the basis of luxuries? Why 
>not distinguish on the basis of whether one has to work for one's living 
>or not? In some families, two earners can pull in 220,000 but, depending 
>on how extended they are, they could be a month away from the sidewalk. 
>Others (who have capital) also have the same income without ever having to 
>work a day in their life. Granted, both cases depend upon the same 
>economic system, yet it makes more sense to me to put the first family in 
>the working class and the second in the capitalist class.
>
>I am not trained in economics, so please, why not slice it and dice it 
>this way?

Dr. Bujes, you're a fine economist -- just like our erudite 
moderator.  Your heterodox analysis is as valid, if not more valid, as any 
orthodox thinking on the matter -- just put it in a model.  Please continue 
to sharpen our rusty old orthodox vegamatics to slice and dice for improved 
insights.

Most sincerely from someone with lots of training in economics.