15 ms·

The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner. Your second point (which I agree with) seems to imply that the US standard of li

• bmelton 13y ago
  > The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner. The lower bound on lower middle class is, according to Wikipedia, $32,500. There are plenty of houses available for purchase in the $60,000 range, which is well inside of affordability ranges. There are a plethora of rural homes available within those ranges, but that level of income isn't necessarily exclusionary to city dwelling either. Dallas, San Antonio, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Tampa, etc., are all very affordable, and at least according to MSN[1], has homes available for less than the lower bound on lower middle class. [1] - http://realestate.msn.com/what-you-must-earn-to-buy-a-home-in-25-cities-in-2013 http://realestate.msn.com/what-you-must-earn-to-buy-a-home-i...
  • gress 13y ago
    Are there plenty of jobs near those cheap houses?
    • bmelton 13y ago
      In Cincinnati, Tampa, etc., one would have to assume so. Regardless, that wasn't the point -- the point was that > The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner is not a true statement. If you'd like to qualify it further, feel free. I suspect I'd have to research more to answer, and I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment you're suggesting, but presenting falsities as facts doesn't do any argument any particular good.