Middle Class for Less

[DC Al Fine]

I had a good discussion with one of the D-NY avatars* a while back about how American society seems to make middle class life much more expensive than it need to be. This applies to both government and society as a whole.

On the transportation side, we refuse to fund public transportation (even of the not egregiously expensive variety) and encourage overspending on cars. The poor in many cases have to spend money maintaining a beater that their European counterparts don't just to get around while wealthier people purchase much larger cars than necessary (think two SUV's where a single compact  might suffice).

With housing, many urban areas make housing more expensive than it has to be by restricting development. Many people favour much larger houses than they need. The stereotypical example is the upper middle class family with one child, a massive house and no savings. The house one seems to be the big one for me. A smaller, cheaper house is much easier to pay off and maintain and it won't be as much of a disaster if you lose your job.

This sort of lifestyle makes life shrinks your wallet and expands your waistline. While the American middle class is financially stressed, they aren't doing themselves any favours. Here are some suggestions for how people can achieve "middle class for less"

• Go to a community college for the first couple years of post-secondary and graduate from an inexpensive state school or a private one that gives lots of financial aid
• Purchase cars that actually meet your needs. Don't get an SUV if you commute in Florida
• Buy a smaller house where you and/or your spouse can walk/take transit to work

Thoughts?

*I think it was trainedinthedistance

[Indy Texas]

Public transportation will always be elusive for America because in a way we waited too long to seriously pursue it. Europeans and Asians have been serious about mass transit since the early 20th century. The bulk of their populations were already concentrated in cities and the transition from horse-and-carriage to streetcar to subways and intercity rail was relatively easy.

Our "window" for public transport was from the 1920s to the 1940s. If FDR wanted to do a major public works project, it should have been passenger rail all the way down the Boston-to-Washington corridor and grants for cities to expand subways and intracity rail.

Instead, cheap oil got the better of us. And unlike Europe and Asia, we have to deal with a racially heterogenous population where the white folks got a little scared and decided by the late 1940s that they didn't want to live near "those people." So they moved out to the 'burbs and bought cars. The Interstate highway system was the nail in the coffin for stopping the rise of a car-centric nation.

As for housing, I would agree that most zoning laws tend to favor the rich at the expense of the poor. They preserve and increase property values in neighborhoods that are already expensive and desirable and decrease the value of less desirable neighborhoods where the middle and working class live by creating fewer options for developing that land. Meanwhile, the poor, who rent, may have to pay higher rents to compensate for higher property values and have no way to capture any of that equity. This, along with "food truck" laws, is an issue that I think conservatives could actually appeal to minorities and the poor by supporting. The fact that they don't is, in my mind, simply more proof that they really don't give two sh!ts about anyone outside their exurban gated communities.

But housing size and housing quality are a matter of consumer preference. We could limit the mortgage interest deduction but you can't "force" the middle class not to buy McMansions. In fact, the carrots and sticks that would encourage smaller houses are the sort of thing a blue avatar like yourself wouldn't care for - higher taxes on energy usage, stricter building standards.

[opebo]

Christ, DC, one can't be 'middle class' without a proper degree from a real university - the community college is entirely working class.  As for riding round on public transport, unless your in Connecticut/Westchester/Long Island, you can't seriously entertain such a notion, and in any case you'd still need a car for around the house. 

[Sol]

Christ, DC, one can't be 'middle class' without a proper degree from a real university - the community college is entirely working class.  As for riding round on public transport, unless your in Connecticut/Westchester/Long Island, you can't seriously entertain such a notion, and in any case you'd still need a car for around the house. 

Which is why most folks should live in big cities, and the rural areas should be largely Agrarian, with very low populations.

[DC Al Fine]

*I think it was trainedinthedistance

Are you referring to this discussion? (Considering our similar views and comparable levels of of outspokenness with regard to sustainable development, the mistake would be understandable.)

Ah crap. Yeah it was you. Sorry about that.

[DC Al Fine]

But housing size and housing quality are a matter of consumer preference. We could limit the mortgage interest deduction but you can't "force" the middle class not to buy McMansions. In fact, the carrots and sticks that would encourage smaller houses are the sort of thing a blue avatar like yourself wouldn't care for - higher taxes on energy usage, stricter building standards.

Well I wouldn't care for higher taxes on energy usage, because we have such a big attachment to our huge homes and SUV's. I haven't seen drastic changes in commuting behaviour as gasoline prices have spiked for example. If you wanted to make any significant change, you'd have to go full throttle and tax the crap out of gasoline* which would have other nasty effects on the economy while we transition over to more dense living.

One thing that's worked in my city is that the water utility charges a fee when a new home is built to set up water service. They jacked up the price on properties over a certain size because in less dense developments, you have to lay much more pipe per house. It's been modestly successful and it appears builders are leaning towards townhouses and small bungalows as of late. We could potentially apply the same solution on a much larger scale. Make McMansions hugely expensive and all of a sudden bungalows become the way to go... not that we could ever sell it politically

*I remember hearing an economist suggest once that gas would have to get about $7/gallon for people to significantly cut down their commutes.

[memphis]

Christ, DC, one can't be 'middle class' without a proper degree from a real university - the community college is entirely working class.  As for riding round on public transport, unless your in Connecticut/Westchester/Long Island, you can't seriously entertain such a notion, and in any case you'd still need a car for around the house. 

Which is why most folks should live in big cities, and the rural areas should be largely Agrarian, with very low populations.

Have you seen the prices of big city apartments? They're completely out of reach for most people. Unpopular mid to smaller cities, like my hometown, are the place to go for cheap living. It's still tough sometimes, but a good material quality of life isn't the absurdity that is the case in the big cities.

[Sol]

Christ, DC, one can't be 'middle class' without a proper degree from a real university - the community college is entirely working class.  As for riding round on public transport, unless your in Connecticut/Westchester/Long Island, you can't seriously entertain such a notion, and in any case you'd still need a car for around the house. 

Which is why most folks should live in big cities, and the rural areas should be largely Agrarian, with very low populations.

Have you seen the prices of big city apartments? They're completely out of reach for most people. Unpopular mid to smaller cities, like my hometown, are the place to go for cheap living. It's still tough sometimes, but a good material quality of life isn't the absurdity that is the case in the big cities.

Well, I don't care what city- it could be Memphis, provided Memphis becomes more dense, with more Public Transportation.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well obviously cutting off social supports and dismantling the welfare state has helped the middle class lifestyle a lot!

[memphis]

As long as a community is populous enough to support job opportunities and basic amenities (e.g. grocery stores) within a walkable area, it contains the right ingredients for sustainable, affordable living. This can occur in Manhattan, or it can occur in a village of 5,000 located on a few acres surrounded by farmland.

Where are these affordable prices in Manhattan? I've never seen them. Just for comparison, a reasonable apt in a nice part of town here is about $700/mo.

[Sol]

As long as a community is populous enough to support job opportunities and basic amenities (e.g. grocery stores) within a walkable area, it contains the right ingredients for sustainable, affordable living. This can occur in Manhattan, or it can occur in a village of 5,000 located on a few acres surrounded by farmland.

Where are these affordable prices in Manhattan? I've never seen them. Just for comparison, a reasonable apt in a nice part of town here is about $700/mo.

I don't think anyone is saying that folks should have to live in Manhattan. I think what we're saying is that people should live in places that have roughly the same population density as Manhattan.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That was tried before and did not work.

[Sol]

That was tried before and did not work.

When and Where? (So I can do a sufficient debunking )

[Link]

I agree with DC.  I support personal responsibility.  I think it is stupid for people to scream for $2 gas at a Michelle Bachman rallies while they are driving an SUV.

The only problem is if the middle class doesn't keep buying a bunch of stuff it doesn't need the economy will take a hit.  The big three automakers ignored small fuel efficient cars because they could make a killing selling popular SUVs.  When gas prices spiked and the economy tanked their product mix did not reflect the new reality.

But if we all lived in modest apartments/homes and took public transportation or drove small fuel efficient cars that would solve a lot of problems with personal debt.  Education is a tough one because a lot of grad schools frown on community college credits.

[H. Ross Peron]

How car-centred is Canada compared to the United States considered both are relatively large countries? Are Canadian cities more densely packed than American ones (I imagine Quebec City or Montreal is pretty dense but not so much say Calgary).

[memphis]

As long as a community is populous enough to support job opportunities and basic amenities (e.g. grocery stores) within a walkable area, it contains the right ingredients for sustainable, affordable living. This can occur in Manhattan, or it can occur in a village of 5,000 located on a few acres surrounded by farmland.

Where are these affordable prices in Manhattan? I've never seen them. Just for comparison, a reasonable apt in a nice part of town here is about $700/mo.

I don't think anyone is saying that folks should have to live in Manhattan. I think what we're saying is that people should live in places that have roughly the same population density as Manhattan.

There is nowhere else in the US that even comes close to Manhattan's density. Very big cities in other developed nations are similarly expensive though. London, Moscow, Tokyo. All of them come at an astronomical cost. I have nothing against big cities. They're fun places with a lot going for them. Cost is not one of them though.

[DC Al Fine]

How car-centred is Canada compared to the United States considered both are relatively large countries? Are Canadian cities more densely packed than American ones (I imagine Quebec City or Montreal is pretty dense but not so much say Calgary).

Generally less car centred. Gas is much more expensive here. My city is average and it's been between $4.75 and $5.00 a gallon most of the year.



In general a Canadian city will have significantly more public transit commuters than a similar sized American one. This is strictly anecdotal, but the American cities I've visited seem less dense than Canadian ones as well. Canadian cities seem to have fewer of those massively spaced developments where every home sits on an acre lot.

[Lief 🗽]

That chart's very inaccurate. A majority of New Yorkers don't own cars; I'm sure the percentage is much higher. DC and Boston are a lot higher than 15% too.

[DC Al Fine]

That chart's very inaccurate. A majority of New Yorkers don't own cars; I'm sure the percentage is much higher. DC and Boston are a lot higher than 15% too.

It's for metro's not the cities themselves.

[Sol]

As long as a community is populous enough to support job opportunities and basic amenities (e.g. grocery stores) within a walkable area, it contains the right ingredients for sustainable, affordable living. This can occur in Manhattan, or it can occur in a village of 5,000 located on a few acres surrounded by farmland.

Where are these affordable prices in Manhattan? I've never seen them. Just for comparison, a reasonable apt in a nice part of town here is about $700/mo.

I don't think anyone is saying that folks should have to live in Manhattan. I think what we're saying is that people should live in places that have roughly the same population density as Manhattan.

There is nowhere else in the US that even comes close to Manhattan's density. Very big cities in other developed nations are similarly expensive though. London, Moscow, Tokyo. All of them come at an astronomical cost. I have nothing against big cities. They're fun places with a lot going for them. Cost is not one of them though.

My point is this: Every city should have Manhattan-level density. If it doesn't, than the city should work to develop it.

[opebo]

We shouldn't be thinking about economizing, we should be thinking about consuming more.  Lack of consumption by the working and 'middle' class is precisely the problem.

[memphis]

As long as a community is populous enough to support job opportunities and basic amenities (e.g. grocery stores) within a walkable area, it contains the right ingredients for sustainable, affordable living. This can occur in Manhattan, or it can occur in a village of 5,000 located on a few acres surrounded by farmland.

Where are these affordable prices in Manhattan? I've never seen them. Just for comparison, a reasonable apt in a nice part of town here is about $700/mo.

I don't think anyone is saying that folks should have to live in Manhattan. I think what we're saying is that people should live in places that have roughly the same population density as Manhattan.

There is nowhere else in the US that even comes close to Manhattan's density. Very big cities in other developed nations are similarly expensive though. London, Moscow, Tokyo. All of them come at an astronomical cost. I have nothing against big cities. They're fun places with a lot going for them. Cost is not one of them though.

My point is this: Every city should have Manhattan-level density. If it doesn't, than the city should work to develop it.

Why? High rises are very expensive to build and require enormous infrastructure to support. And, anecdotally, most people don't want to live like that. I like early 20th century streetcar suburbs, but I don't want to force everybody to live in one. I like having options. I find modern sprawl repulsive, but that's why I don't live out there. Aethetics and politics notwithstanding, suburbia actually works pretty damn well in metros of about 1 million. You can still get anywhere in under half an hour, traffic flows well almost all the time, and prices are very reasonable. I'd live in an economically comparable suburb of a medium sized city over its counterpart in New York or Chicago any day.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why? High rises are very expensive to build

lolno

[traininthedistance]

Why? High rises are very expensive to build

lolno

Actually, once you go above twenty stories or so they do become disproportionately expensive.  But your garden variety six-story apartment building, naw, that's not expensive.

Anyway, it's really really silly to say that there's nothing in between Manhattan-style density and automobile-oriented suburbs.  I think that people should be able to build Manhattans if they want, but there is a whole range of options that are less dense than that but also sufficiently dense to support public transit and a vibrant urban streetscape.  The break-point for when people will switch away from cars is somewhere on the order of seven to ten dwellings an acre, which is a good deal less than Manhattan.  "Streetcar suburbs" are pretty great, and I suspect that the real action going forward ought to be adaptive reuse and infill in our suburbs (and more suburban parts of cities) to reach the sort of densities necessary to support transit, not the Manhattanization of current urban centers.  But it's going to take a while.  It took many decades of building for car culture to get us where we are now, fixing those problems ain't gonna happen overnight.

As for the OP, I do in fact live suggestions #2 and #3; no car, 1-BR for two people, no problem.  I understand that not everyone has the ability to go car-free, but almost everyone can cut back, and I do certainly hope (and have reason to believe this is not a hope in vain) that, going forward, more people will want to go car-free.  #1... not so much.  I will be saddled with mounds of expensive college debt until the day I die, oh well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually, once you go above twenty stories or so they do become disproportionately expensive.  But your garden variety six-story apartment building, naw, that's not expensive.

Even very tall high rises can be comparatively cheap thanks to the questionable miracle of system building!