Today's headline:

As of June '22 61% of Americans report living paycheck to paycheck, up from 58%.

"Even top earners have been struggling to make ends meet, the report found. Of those earning $200,000 or more, 36% reported living paycheck to paycheck, a jump from the previous month.

Another recent survey, from consulting firm Willis Towers Watson, estimated 36% of those earning $100,000 or more said they were living paycheck to paycheck."

[BRAD] just rented a $1439/ mo home. They chose my PayDayPlan rent. 2 out of last 3 new leases in July chose PayDayPlan.

Inflation is on everyone's mind. Adapt to what people want and need.

Help your folks manage inflation by offering weekly rents with a service fee.

BRAD

In July I've had dozens of applicants for several apartments. A Single, several 1 Bedroom, a 2 Bedroom and even a 3 Bedroom.

All of them were really living from paycheck to paycheck with the illusions they had savings, not taking into account their debt (Credit Cards, Loans, Auto's, etc).

I don't charge for partial rent payments Brad. We tell people to pay it in any increment they want - electronically so it's easily trackable - as long as it is paid *in full* by the due date. That way everyone is ahead of the game, not playing catch-up mid-month.

So first month, they have to pay in full to move in. But then they can start paying towards next month whenever they'd like, as long as it's paid in full by the correct date.

Oddly enough, 61% of households don't have a written budget that they stick to either. (*grins)

Okay, I jest (a little) but the fact is anyone can avoid living paycheck to paycheck by doing a written budget and sticking to it. Only when a person takes on too many financial commitments does a $200,000 / year income not make ends meet.

We definitely offer the PayDay plans, but I don't kid myself about it. As we who can do math know: it's at minimum of 8.3% annual increase in the tenant's rent expense, and even more if the LL charges a fee on top of just splitting the monthly rent in half.

In the long run, they need to set aside half the rent money from each paycheck into savings and pay on the 1st! That would solve their problem and cost them much less. It'd be so easy to set up, with online banking it takes a few seconds to set up a reoccurring transfer every 2 weeks into savings, then one transfer of the 30th the move them money back over to checking.

It's not an inflation problem: it's a budgeting problem.

But since people refuse to accept that fact and/or take the necessary steps, I "help" them by charging them more. Whatever works, I suppose. It's cheaper than an eviction, but still sorta sucky for them long-term. That said, it's not my job to tell them what to do. I offer them options and let them choose.

Sell 'em two 6 packs for $9.99 or a case for $15. Whatever works.

Which is why, PMH, I don't charge extra to accept money in however many increments they want to pay. My bank doesn't charge ME to make multiple payments a month towards my mortgage or credit card or whatever, why should I charge my tenants for me actually getting paid?

Many "budget" by looking at the minimum payment to decide if the paycheck can support more spending. That works as long as costs and interest rates remain constant. Once either goes up there isn't enough paycheck to cover the minimums and then there is a financial meltdown. It doesn't matter what income bracket you are in, that is a really bad way to manage spending and by the time you figure it out it's too late.

61% check to check:

With priorities other than housing,

drugs, booze, sigs, gambling, fine dining,

and animal(s) ownership, to name a few,

leaves little to the imagination, as to why ?

That sort of attitude is becoming a real problem. It is ignoring the fact that there are a LOT of people in their 20s and 30s right now who are normal, hard-working people -- who are NOT wasting money on "drugs, booze, cigs, gambling, or fine dining" -- who are having trouble saving much and are still living paycheck to paycheck.

We need to get over this idea that everyone struggling has brought it on themselves by buying Starbucks and avocado toast... That just isn't reality for many people regardless of what you want to tell yourselves...

John, you forget that most of us get to see our tenants lives up close. I know I have a ton of hard working folks in their 20s and 30s as tenants. While they may not buy drugs, booze, cigs, or gamble, only a very few are living within their means. I don't really blame them, they learned it from their parents.

I'll give you an example. I have a young family in their early 30's I'm helping get their finances together. When we started they were making minimum payments on multiple cards, over $1100 a month going to interest and penalties, had two very nice cars with $1200 a month going to payments but were upside down on both, a house payment with associated costs that was about 45% of their income. Nothing wrong with any of that yet they were struggling financially. Working with them, they made a few adjustment. Sold the cars and bought cheaper ones, cut up the cards and went to cash spending, cut back on the excessive kids activities (club sports trips every weekend 3 months a year), and a few other smaller things. A year and a half later, they have no car payments, no card debt, halfway to saving for a newer car to buy for cash, and have started a retirement account. Their marriage is stronger because they don't argue over money.

I don’t buy it either John. I too have seen it up close.

Once upon a time, Hell's Angels, Military members coming back from 'nam and folks in prison all had Tattoos. Now a days, I am about the only one without ink.

Guess I am not cool.

I'm with MikeA. While my Class C tenants aren't wasting money on avocado toast and Starbucks, I can tell you what they are spending it on, bcause I see it every time I go to do a filter change or a 2-minute in home inspection.

Pets. Phones. Data Plans. Streaming services. Leased cars. Rent-a-center furniture and appliances.

It adds up. $400 - $700 a month for things that have no lasting value beyond the end of the current month.

In addition, I see many applicants (not the ones I approve) with paystubs showing 25-30 hours of work per week. Spare time is another biggie. That wasted time would increase their income 25%.

Ken, we're on the same wave-length, although I don't even think 70 hours a week is necessary. That's if you want to shine and do big things. A reasonable lifestyle is well within reach for anyone who works a full time job that requires skills beyond showing up sober, that they stick with an advance due to their reasonably good work ethic and willingness to learn new skills, and if they follow a budget.

What I find concerning is everyone now thinks that every job should pay a "living wage." What in the world does that mean? How many hours a week are required and at what rate and does the cost of living in the area have any impact?

I can make a "living wage" at $10/hour if I'm willing to work 70 hours a week. Or $15/hour at 60 hours. Or $20/hour at 50 hours, etc.

What does "living wage" mean? Do I get to live where I want, in the neighborhood that I want, with the kinds of countertops and appliances I want, or do I have to make choices about location vs. amenities? Do I get the vacation package that I want or do I staycation? Do I get steak for every meal, or do I have to eat Ramen sometimes? Or how about order out from Uber Eats since I'm so tired from workin' all the time? Do I get to upgrade to the latest i-Phone every 2 years or every 4 years? Do I get fiber Internet or basic broad band?

It's like people with zero economic understanding are driving the debate on these issues. They either don't understand scarcity of labor/jobs and other resources and the impact on prices, or they do understand and choose to ignore it.

People shouldn't have to work 70 hours a week for 20 years to be able to survive. Sheesh, people.

Not worth the argument here. Feel free to keep piling on them all. Whatever.

Also, to be very clear, I have lots of tenants who are horrible with money and do waste it on big screen TVs and so on. But, to be fair, most of the ones I have doing that are in their 40s and 50s, not the 20s and 30s that we're talking about here...

"work 70 hours a week to survive"

Put that strawman away before he gets burned up! No one said such a thing. But even if we did....what's the big deal? Everyone whines about how our grandparent had everything so awesome back in the good old days. My grandparents were farms. 70 hour weeks were average. 100+ hours during harvest season. Most small business owners I know routinely put in 60-70 hours for years until they develop a head of steam. Back before I got my legs under me, I routinely put in 40 hours at the W-2 job and another 15-20 hours per week with rentals plus another 16+ hours a month with the National Guard. 55-60 hours/week was average for me. And we did more than survive: we thrived due to frugality and living well below our means. It's a lot better now that I've built a firm foundation and learned how to do better!

Who says 40 hours is the magic number? You work to get what you want, regardless of how many hours it takes. And if you can't, then you need to adjust your wants to fit your needs.

Here's the dirty little secret I've found: for a whole lot of folks, "can't do it" really means "don't want to do it." Find me a person who says they can't and give me full access to their data, and I'll show you 3 ways they can....if they're willing to do what it takes.

What's the right number John? This is a sincere question:

The right number of hours to be worked? The right dollar amount per hour? The right number on the price of housing?

MikeA - I agree 100% with - I'll give you an example - - I see young folks with absolutely no financial skills - most are college educated. Buying expensive vehicles - what a waste for most young people - take out all the time - Boats they hardly ever use - buying expensive clothing $80/90 for a pair of jeans - never looking for value only what is the most popular and the list goes on and on.

Most folks who are pay check to pay check hardly ever look for value.

Always taught my kids to look for VALUE - at the time they said I was cheap - know they do the same thing.

John, below an interesting tidbit from an article on CNBC. Those in their late 20's and 30's are not saving as much as their younger counterparts. Everyone other than gen Z is saving about the same amount. So, is that because their younger counterparts are making more or spending less? I think we both know the answer to that.

Gen Z was in their formative years during the recession of 2008, they saw their parents struggle because they didn't have any money saved and were living paycheck to paycheck when the floor fell out from under them. As a result they are more motivated to live within their means because they have lived through the emotional impacts. They know that whining about it will not solve it, so they are taking actions to not live it themselves.

www.cnbc.com/2022/07/26/gen-z-saving-14percent-of-income-for-retirement-more-than-other-generations.html

PMH, let me tell you about my dad.

My dad lived through the great depression; lost a brother to cold/starvation; at 8 years old ran away from an alcoholic father and rode the rails half way across the country to live with his grand-dad who lived on a farm so had food. In WW2 he served in China where conditions were very rough; came home and lived in a chicken coup with his newlywed because there was no housing after the war and he didn't have two nickels to rub together. Went to work for a S&L that was about to go under, turned it around to be profitable and earned enough to barely live on. Saved his pennies and went to Auctioneer school and did sale barn auctions and farm sales as a side gig to give his family a little financial breathing room. Took some of that and bought back the farm that his grand-dad lost to foreclosure and raised cattle as a second side gig to improve even more.

Then he bought a Real Estate agency that was going under turned it around and got into RE. From the time us 4 kids were old enough to walk we were helping with one or another family business. I grew up getting up at 5:00 in the morning so we could feed cattle before I went to school. I'm not saying my dad was special, his story is no different from a large portion of his generation.

I'm 61 and was a single parent for 2 decades. Thanks to my old school european parents who never helped me financially, I knew how to squeeze you know what out of a nickel.

I worked two jobs (still do). I asked my college educated 30 something co worker if he wanted some side work... and was flatly refused as he spends his weekends video gaming. His wife works part time retail and they are still renting.

I am on another forum where I hear tales of 20 somethings buying brand new vehicles working only 8-10 hours a week. Today's youngsters feel they should be paid 80K right out of the gate working 30 hours a week at most.

Mike,

What a great inspirational story. Can I have your permission to share it as needed? Reminds me of a quote I like:

6, It has nothing to do with salary. It's all about a "haughty spirit" one filled with greed, pride, and envy.

These people want prestige, status, to be envied by their friends. So, what does that lead to? I have to have a better car, house, boat, clothes, jewelry, vacation... than my neighbor. Once I've overcome that neighborhood I move to a more expensive neighborhood and leave those old losers behind. The move up the status chain causes you to live beyond your means and at some point the house of cards crumbles.

A humble spirit provides a completely different set of fruit.

Wise words, MikeA.

Edward Bernays was one of the pioneers when in came to marketing and propaganda both of which are forms of mind control. Most consumption is based on the need to address perceived deficiencies and market research is designed to identify and exploit these. The greater one's perceived deficiencies are, the more salve needed for the wound. This is why we see folks engage in economic behaviors that make no sense. Much of this behavior is shaped. If folks thought like they did a few generations back and bought what was actually needed, whole industries would collapse. There's a vested interest in financial ignorance.

Sid: It wasn't a strawman. Ken literally said it in the post above yours: "most of them arent willing to work 70 hour weeks to get ahead,10-20 years of that would set them up nicely but most couldnt handle it mentally"

I simply said that I don't think people should have to work 70 hours a week to "get ahead." I also think it a stretch to suggest that "most couldn't handle it mentally."

We all sound like a bunch of Boomers going "Back in my day!..."

I'm done arguing about it here. No progress will be made.

GKarl, I read Bernays book titled Propaganda too. He lived to be very old and some appearances on Letterman are on y ou tube.

He was always promoting his company that had such big projects as get women smoking, give Americans reasons to support banana wars , political campaigns and so on.

WMH: Because there isn't a simple answer and you MUST know that. There isn't a simple "This is exactly how many hours someone should work in order to make a reasonable living." It's incredibly vague and we all know it.

What I do know is that, to me, someone should not have to work 70 hours a week for 20 years. I don't think that is "reasonable." Some people here won't even agree with that! THAT is why I know it isn't worth the argument here. If we can't even agree that 70 hours a week for 20 years is probably beyond what should be expected, then we'll never find any middle ground.

-John...

Also, you want real numbers on something that varies INCREDIBLY by location. But people seem to always ignore that when trying to talk about hourly wages.

A "living wage" is one in which people make some income that allows them (and/or their family) to have adequate shelter, food, and other necessities.

That number in the middle of Michigan is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT than that number is Los Angeles.

I mean, heck, you can do the actual math based on averages for locations. There are even calculators out there to help do it. In my county in Michigan, the "Living Wage" for a single adult with no kids is about $16/hr. That's working 40 hours per week.

That same calculation in Los Angeles is $22/hr.

I *know* the numbers vary wildly, that's why I asked the question: what's THE number? The powers that be use a FEDERAL guideline that ignores all geographical data.

There are many "locals" here at the beach that believe they should be allowed to rent at lower prices because they were born here. Or moved here 20 years ago. Or whatever number makes them feel like a local. And they HIGHLY resent people who are able and willing to pay market rents.

70 hours a week: break it down. First who said 40 was magic work week? But okay let's assume 9-5, 5 days a week is reasonable for any job. In DC, where I used to live, you can add two hours to *each end* of the day for a commute at rush hour. So that's 12 hours x 5, you are already at 60 hours per week and that's without overtime, special projects, etc. If you happen to travel for your job, as my husband used to, 70-80 weeks and more were COMMON. And expected if you wanted to get ahead.

For a person working a more creative job, the hours can be even longer: all-nighters not uncommon sometimes.

John, can you share the calculators you are referring to, I would like to take a deeper look at what they include in their formula.

WMH: Again, there is no "THE" number. That's my point.

I don't disagree that some people work hard and lots of hours. But we can just agree to disagree that someone should HAVE to work 70+ hours per week in order to make a decent living.

Maybe your husband was severely underpaid. Maybe he wasted too much of his life work. I don't know. I'm not pretending to know.

I'm just saying that, as I get older and start to recognize that life on earth here ends at some point, I want to find time to do things that I want to do. I work probably 50-60 hours per week at a day job. I barely have time for anything extra outside of that. I can't imagine working 70+ hours per week. It would feel like I was taking so much of my life time working without time for anything else -- just to "get ahead" -- to the point that it doesn't make sense.

There is more to life than work.

MikeA: I just did a quich search for the one I used. I didn't dive into the specifics -- they were just meant to be examples that it varies quite a bit based on location. In any case, I used the one from MIT:

livingwage.mit.edu

They have details about the data and such.

And, sure, maybe a "living wage" should be more than just a roof and some food. That's kinda what we're talking about here. I think people shouldn't have to work 70+ hours per week -- for 20 years -- to be able to have a decent living. (i.e. more than just a roof and not starving).

Also, just to note it, that MIT one calculated only $16/hour for Michigan for their "living wage." That's $32k per year. I don't consider that to be "middle class income/benefits." It doesn't seem TOO generous that the single-adult level, at least. I don't think of someone making $32k/year as being "generous in their assumptions". That seems a lot more "frugal lifestyle" to me than that.

John you obviously can afford to CHOOSE not to work harder and want to enjoy life more. No one says this is a wrong choice if you can afford a roof over your head, food for your family and basic necessities of life.

It's when people start saying that THIS should be free and THAT should free and THIS is a human right and THAT is a human right...but what they end up meaning, when queried closely and forced to answer...is that SOMEONE ELSE should be paying for this stuff, not them. "The government" usually - which is just its taxpaying citizens (ie those who work) and nobody else.

I just looked up the median income for Michigan in 2021. The median by definition is the exact middle where 50% of people are above and 50% below. I don't know how anyone could argue against that figure being anything other than smack in the middle of the middle income bracket.

Sisco, I was unaware that Bernays lived that long. I'll certainly look his interviews on youtube. I knew he was Sigmund Freud's nephew but was unaware of his family being involved with Netflix.

WMH: Well, I didn't say anything about anything being free nor that anyone else should pay for them. So, you can argue that with someone else, I guess, but not me.

And, yes, of course there is choice involved. I simply disagree that you should have to work 70 hours per week to live a decent life. People shouldn't have to work so hard that they have no life in order to survive.

- John...

WMH: Well, I didn't say anything about anything being free nor that anyone else should pay for them. So, you can argue that with someone else, I guess, but not me.

And, yes, of course there is choice involved. I simply disagree that you should have to work 70 hours per week to live a decent life. People shouldn't have to work so hard that they have no life in order to survive.

- John...

WMH: Well, I didn't say anything about anything being free nor that anyone else should pay for them. So, you can argue that with someone else, I guess, but not me.

And, yes, of course there is choice involved. I simply disagree that you should have to work 70 hours per week to live a decent life. People shouldn't have to work so hard that they have no life in order to survive.

- John...

MikeA: You are mixing terms a bit. "Middle Class" is not the same as the middle or median income.

Middle Class is actually defined by PEW research (and most other sources) as "whose earning from two-thirds to double the median household income in the USA." The median income for the USA was $65,000. That puts the "middle class" (but common definition) at $43,350 to $130,000. That is ignoring family size and location. Those making less than $43,350 are considered to be in the "lower-income bracket."

So, if a person makes $32k per year, they are well below the defined "middle class" bracket.

Typo. I meant "THOSE earning from two-thirds to double the median..." (Not "whose").

John, you did it again though. You said, "I simply disagree that you should have to work 70 hours per week to live a decent life. People shouldn't have to work so hard that they have no life in order to survive."

Well what IS the number of hours one should expect to work?

You said, "in order to survive" but most of the rest were saying "to get ahead." BIG difference in attitudes and outcomes conveyed in those few words.

The "living wage in the United States is $16.54 per hour, or $68,808 per year, in 2019" which is straight off the MIT living wage web site. PEW defines middle class as $43,350 to $130,000. So, living wage is well up into the middle class range.

The $32k is a state of Michigan number for a single person, not national. You would have to use the PEW definition to interpolate to Michigan's single person middle class number. Using the standard two thirds to double median income definition for Michigan's single middle class would nail it down as $20,482 to $61,446.

So, I retract the statement that it is above the mid point of middle class. I do however stand by my statement that a living wage by definition is well up the middle class scale, falling just below the middle, and far above what it takes to live a minimalistic lifestyle.

Here's some other info I've uncovered on living wage over the last few months. The term living wage started with a couple of far left researchers in MIT who were trying to make a name for themselves to justify getting a research grant, there's some argument whether they came up with the name or it was already floating around. Since there was already a strongly adopted definition of middle class, they couldn't approach it that way. They had to market it differently so they went after claiming it was something just above the poverty rate when in fact, while approached differently, they defined the same standard of living as the middle class. Middle class holds the mental image of "doing well" for most Americans, living wage holds the mental image of "minimum necessary to live life", the reality is they both measure the same thing. The Socialist agenda pushers picked up on the hype that "everyone should be making a living wage" since that sells better than "everyone should be in the middle class", pulling on emotions of people rather than logical analysis. It is the rally cry for wage inequality arguments which also spawned out of the Socialist movement and again is pulling on peoples emotions to get them to join the fight rather than a logical analysis.

WMH: I think I've made it fairly clear that I think that it is important to have a work/life balance. I don't think that number is 70 hours per week of work.

I think "to get ahead" says absolutely nothing. Please define "to get ahead" if you want to argue about what it takes to get to that number. I don't know what that means -- it's incredibly vague.

If you want a hard number, then, sure, I'd say 40-ish hours a week. I think a person should be able to work a normal full-time job (which is considered 40 hours a week most of the time) and make a decent living. I don't think people should have to work more than 40-50 hours per week to be "middle class."

And I consider "middle class" to be well above "able to survive." If "getting ahead" is "middle class", then, yes, that is the number I think it should take to "get ahead" to "middle class."

MikeA: I'm confused.

"living wage in the United States is $16.54 per hour, or $68,808 per year, in 2019"

What? $16.54 per hour is $34,403.20 per year. $68,808 is DOUBLE that. You must be looking at pay for TWO ADULTS, not one.

So, it takes TWO people working full time at $16.54 per hour to reach your "middle class" range.

I said above that I was looking at a single person to keep things simple. A single person working $16.54/hour makes $34k/year -- well under the "middle class" range. That is what I said above and that is still accurate.

MikeA: Note that I think we're being a little facetious if we try to argue that "middle class" in Michigan goes all the way down to someone making $20k/year. Sorry, we have a lower cost of living than, say, California -- but I still know that someone making $20k/year here is nowhere near what we would all call "middle class" (even if we can't decide on an exact number for it).

So, if we have to agree to disagree on that, so be it. But I don't think most people would try to argue that the "middle class" range in Michigan starts at $20k. Nor do I think most would consider even $32k to be "well up the middle class scale." It just isn't -- unless, again, you try to argue that what we think of as "middle class" are people making $20k a year. That just isn't reality.

Now, all that being said, I agree that there is a difference between "middle class" and "minimum necessary to maintain life", of course. And I can agree that a "living wage" does not necessarily mean "middle class."

John, I guess "get ahead" by definition means to get ahead/above one's peer group? And since we were discussing jobs and finances, I would say ahead of one's peer group financially? Ahead of where one would have expected them to end up financially?

Let's take the tale of two single mothers, just because I was one and I know what my friends and peers went through to get by.

One chooses that bare minimum *is* enough: a place to live (rented, Section 8, Class D or C) enough to eat (subsidized with SNAP) and getting on "Disability" is a goal in itself. They will have a lot of free time to enjoy life. More power to them.

Another chooses to get a job waitressing, pulling in the maximum amount of money she can - probably working nights, finding odd child care for the kids, hustling a bit to make more money. A 40/wk job probably pays LESS, in fact. Maybe goes to school in the day when the kids eventually do. Working her way up the so-called ladder. Tough work. Long hours. But eventually, gets a nice job with benefits and then the savings start. Maybe she gets into REAL ESTATE and suddenly...ahead of the curve.

But it took hard work and long hours.

John, perhaps the easiest is to give you the calculators and you can see for yourself.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

I keyed in $32K, one person, Michigan, Ann Arbor and it gave me this result: "Based on your household income and the number of people in your household, YOU are in the MIDDLE income tier, along with 47% of adults in ANN ARBOR."

If you play with it you will see it changes from "Middle" to "Lower" between $29K and $28K.

livingwage.mit.edu/

Selected Michigan, Washtenaw county, and looked at one person, no kids and the hourly rate given is $19.12 per hour. Take that X 40 hours per week X 52 weeks and you get $39,769.

WMH: I guess I don't understand why we're having the "get ahead" discussion then if you mean "ahead of your peers." Again, wanting to live a normal life. People who want to be "middle class" maybe. That's not necessarily "getting ahead" of the average person -- they just want to be the average person.

Now, sure, if most of your peers are in the lower income group, then wanting to be middle class would be wanting to "get ahead", I guess.

My point is the same: I think people should be able to work normal jobs at 40-ish hours per week and make it to "middle class"/normal living -- without being in the "lower income" group forever. I don't think that is unreasonable for people to want that.

Also, I don't think people who want a living wage are necessarily doing "the bare minimum" as you suggest.

I see people who want to go "Yeah, these people just want to do the bare minimum and hope to get on disability" like you just did. I don't think that is fair -- there are lots of people who want a living wage -- who are willing to work -- who do not fall into that category -- who still shouldn't have to work 70 hours a week to get there.

There should be more choices than the simple two you suggest of "bare minimum" or 70 hours per week. You seem to be focusing on the extremes when I'm just suggesting the middle ground should be the norm.

"who still **shouldn't** have to work 70 hours a week to get there." (Who says they SHOULDN'T? I don't get this one. Is it you that's objecting to the 70?)

"There should be more choices than the simple two you suggest of "bare minimum" or 70 hours per week." Yes of course and there are! No one body is defining how much or how little you need to work!

But WHAT'S THE NUMBER for you? What's a good number of hours to work per week to both reach the middle class but not work too hard to do so?

Well here's an actual number I stumbled across today:

WMH: Yes, it is me, personally, who things people shouldn't have to work 70 hours a week just to live a decent life.

Again, if we need to agree to disagree on that, so be it.

And you keep asking for real numbers and I keep giving them to you -- and then you say I didn't. I've said repeatedly that I think people shouldn't have to work more than 40-50 hours per week to live a decent life.

Also, I never said "but not work too hard to do so". I think people should work hard. But I also think that they should have a good work/life balance - and, to do that, I think 40-ish hours per week is reasonable.

You just said "it's at least 45 hours with commuting." Ok, I'm fine with that number. I'm not counting commuting because that can vary too and it shouldn't be on the employer to worry about that, IMO. So, from an ACTUAL WORK standpoint -- meaning hours on the job -- I think 40-ish is reasonable. Sometimes it might be more than that, sure. But that's a LONG WAYS from "70 hours a week for 20 years" as mentioned above.

PMH: What are you perplexed about? We're talking about how much a person should have to work to survive -- and, then, we're also talking about how much a person should have to work to have a decent living (i.e. more than just "surviving").

MikeA was the first to mention "the middle". And then people wanted real numbers, so I tried to provide some.

I don't know what you are "perplexed" about if you've been following the thread. That's literally what we've been discussing -- with WMH repeatedly wanting "real numbers" (which I gave more than once and he still asks for them).

And then people still question why I just want to leave these threads. Because, clearly, we're not going to make any progress. It's not a discussion. It's both sides repeating the same thing over and over again and thinking they must be right.

John - I'm a she, just FWIW. Perspective.

I think discussions are helpful even if we don't agree. It helps to know another side.

I was a single mother back in the day, high school dropout in fact, two kids, two divorces before I was 25. So my peers WERE the 'bare minimum' kind of folks sometimes. I knew them well.

It was hard work - willing to stay late, work weekends, step up for more - that got me beyond that, and hard work is what got DH (3rd husband, 36+ years) and I to the point that we are as comfortable as we are.

6x6, it's not just the hours. If you are happy doing 40 hours at the mini-golf course booth, good for you. But should you automatically have the same middle-class life as the guy who puts in 40 hours as a plumber or HVAC tech or other more essential job just because you work the same number of hours?

I say Nay Nay.

Have a spouse who also works. And live in a sutdio or one bedroom

6x6, so WHAT they do for those 40 hours doesn't matter, as long as it is termed "work" and earns any sort of (let's hope) taxable paycheck?

So to belabor the point: the person that likes being outside and talking to giggly girls in bathing suits all day (the mini-golf operator) should be able to afford a house and car on his salary alone? Because he works 40 hours?