Class survey results, part 1

[Supergirl]

This is just part one of the results, focusing on people's responses to self-class identification and their income and type of work they do. Further results forthcoming.

x-posted to my blog, located at http://realsupergirl.wordpress.com:

78 people took the survey, though not all 78 completed the whole survey. All were U.S. residents.

34 of 77 people identify as “middle class” while 18 identify as “upper middle class” and 12 people identified their current class background as “lower middle class.” In total, that means 64 out of 78 people identified with the “middle class” - which means either my sample size of people taking this survey is drastically different from the national average of who is considered “middle class” or people have a broad definition of what middle class looks like. 7 people identified as “working class” and another 5 identified as “poor.” Only one person identfied themselves as “wealthy.”

Contrasting this with what people said about their actual family income, the largest percentage of people said their families made between 100K to 150K a year – 14 people or 21%. 9 people said their income was MORE than 150K a year, four of whom said their family income is more than 200K a year. Another 11 people said their family incomes were 60K to 80K a year, and 10 people said it was 80K to 100K a year. 10 people said they only make 20-40K a year in family income, 6 people said they make under 20K, and 7 people said they make 40K to 60 K. For reference, according to the U.S. Census, the median American income for 2008 was $50,303 which would mean the average American family income would be around $100K. So if 100K is the median household income, surely those 23 people who make 60K or less a year in famly income would be considered “poor” or “working class” or “lower middle class” – at least by income bracket. And in fact, 24 people listed themselves as one of those three categories, though by far the tendency was for people to opt for “lower middle class.” One could speculate that the stigma of identifying as “working class” or “poor” might have pushed people towards this option. On the other end of the spectrum, with 9 people identifying their income as 50K more than the median American family income, it is curious that only one person opted to label themselves “wealthy.” There seems to be a stigma on the other hand (a kind of “rich guilt” factor) that makes people round down their class identity to “upper middle class” rather than identify as “wealthy.” So the net result is that we have a lot of people identifying with the “middle class” than who actuallly appear to fit the definition of “middle class”, at least in terms of income.

But class is much more than income. In terms of profession, 42 people identified with middle or upper class professions. Only 68 people responded to this question. For operational definition, a middle or upper class profession is one that requires advanced schooling (doctor, lawyer, therapist, academic, engineer, religious leader, CEO) and/or the person in that field has sought it out as a “professsion” rather than simply a means to an end, which is why I include graduate students and artists in this category as well. By contrast, 22 people selected jobs that were more working class in nature: government employee (6), small business owner (5), military (2), service industry (6), and administrative (3). Three people indicated that they were unemployed, one of whom reports they collect disability. Putting these results together with the results about current income level, two thirds (62%) of the people work in typically middle class professions but 82% of respondents identify with the middle class, largely because of the tendency of people to both round up and round down their incomes in order to avoid identifying as either rich or poor.

[Winehole23]

There seems to be a stigma on the other hand (a kind of “rich guilt” factor) that makes people round down their class identity to “upper middle class” rather than identify as “wealthy.”This leapt out at me.

Did you just measure the stigma of "rich guilt", Supergirl?

[Winehole23]

How delightfully squirrelly.

[Supergirl]

This leapt out at me.

Did you just measure the stigma of "rich guilt", Supergirl?

well, how else would you explain the tendency of people to "round down" their income from "wealthy" to "middle class"?

[DarrinS]

"wealthy" is a relative term.


Is 200K/year considered wealthy? To some, perhaps, to others, perhaps not.


It's a lot more than I make, but I would still consider that level of income to be between middle-class and upper middle-class.

[Winehole23]

well, how else would you explain the tendency of people to "round down" their income from "wealthy" to "middle class"?I would study more before generalizing from such a small sample.

[TeyshaBlue]

well, how else would you explain the tendency of people to "round down" their income from "wealthy" to "middle class"?

You answered your own question, I think.

"....or people have a broad definition of what middle class looks like. "

[coyotes_geek]

For reference, according to the U.S. Census, the median American income for 2008 was $50,303 which would mean the average American family income would be around $100K. So if 100K is the median household income, surely those 23 people who make 60K or less a year in famly income would be considered “poor” or “working class” or “lower middle class” – at least by income bracket.

I'm assuming you got that $50,303 number from here. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf)

That $50,303 number is median household income. You did not need to double it. If you're in a household bringing in $60k, you're among the wealthiest third of the country.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm assuming you got that $50,303 number from here. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf)

That $50,303 number is median household income. You did not need to double it. If you're in a household bringing in $60k, you're among the wealthiest third of the country.

I'm beginning to wonder if Supergirl's teetering on the edge of confirmation bias. That's a pretty huge mistake to miss.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm beginning to wonder if Supergirl's teetering on the edge of confirmation bias. That's a pretty huge mistake to miss.

It certainly derails a lot of her analysis IMO. I strongly disagree with trying to tie "working class" to "lower middle class" or "poor". Skilled laborers like plumbers and electricians definitely qualify as working class people and I'd say a good chunk of them can be considered upper middle class.

[Supergirl]

I'm assuming you got that $50,303 number from here. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf)

That $50,303 number is median household income. You did not need to double it. If you're in a household bringing in $60k, you're among the wealthiest third of the country.

oh, good point.

[Supergirl]

It certainly derails a lot of her analysis IMO. I strongly disagree with trying to tie "working class" to "lower middle class" or "poor". Skilled laborers like plumbers and electricians definitely qualify as working class people and I'd say a good chunk of them can be considered upper middle class.

In terms of MONEY, yes. In terms of class identification, and attitudes toward work and money, they are solidly working class.

[TeyshaBlue]

oh, good point.

In terms of the analysis that flows from it, it's pretty much a fatal point.:depressed

[doobs]

Try telling a New Yorker who makes ~$200K that he's "rich."

[rjv]

she may also be going on the model that studies how one makes the money. in other words, there is definitely a class distinction between the plumber who makes 100,000 per year and the actuary (and college grad) who makes the same. income is not the only criteria by which to judge class distinctions.

[TeyshaBlue]

she may also be going on the model that studies how one makes the money. in other words, there is definitely a class distinction between the plumber who makes 100,000 per year and the actuary (and college grad) who makes the same. income is not the only criteria by which to judge class distinctions.

I still think it boils down to her original ascertation,"....or people have a broad definition of what middle class looks like. "

[greyforest]

not much interesting data here

[balli]

I hope this "research" is being done for a stats class or dissertation at a cut-rate grad program. Otherwise,


How delightfully squirrelly.

[Winehole23]

I think it was brassy of Supergirl to design a quasi-sociological study, get us to participate, and share the results.

She didn't have to share the results or her opinions about them. I salute her for that.

[rjv]

I think it was brassy of Supergirl to design a quasi-sociological study, get us to participate, and share the results.

She didn't have to share the results or her opinions about them. I salute her for that.

yup. she never stated anything more than she enjoys these endeavors either.

[Winehole23]

questionaire, i guess i shd say instead of study.

[Supergirl]

Try telling a New Yorker who makes ~$200K that he's "rich."

yes, obviously where you live affects how far your money goes. Yet, people still make choices about where to live, and the prices of real estate/rent in Manhattan is what causes people to move out to Brooklyn and further out and commute in to work.

If 50K is the median American income, 200K *HAS* to be considered "wealthy".

What's also worth noting is that 50K figure is falling...the median American income has declined the last few years. While expenses keep going up.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think it was brassy of Supergirl to design a quasi-sociological study, get us to participate, and share the results.

She didn't have to share the results or her opinions about them. I salute her for that.

Agreed.:toast

[SnakeBoy]

If 50K is the median American income, 200K *HAS* to be considered "wealthy".


I put upper middle class because that's what I thought, not because of any rich guilt. Now that you put "has" in all caps with asterisks around it I can see that you are absolutely correct and I am in fact wealthy. Go ahead a change one upper middle class to wealthy for your class survey. I can't wait for my wife to get home so I can share the good news that we have moved up in life.

[rjv]

I put upper middle class because that's what I thought, not because of any rich guilt. Now that you put "has" in all caps with asterisks around it I can see that you are absolutely correct and I am in fact wealthy. Go ahead a change one upper middle class to wealthy for your class survey. I can't wait for my wife to get home so I can share the good news that we have moved up in life.

bourgeois elitist pig!!! :lol

[DarrinS]

I hope this "research" is being done for a stats class or dissertation at a cut-rate grad program. Otherwise,

Douche much?

[Drachen]

I think that when defining wealth, we should probably, before discussing actual dollars, discuss what percentile we relate to wealth (i.e. 90th percentile = wealthy). You also have a point about regional wealth so maybe we reconsider and say 90th percentile relative to regional income = wealth.

As you said wealth is relative but I think that if you are in the top 10% of earners in your area, then you are probably wealthy. Now what you DO with that wealth has nothing to do with if you are wealthy or not. If you blow it all, it doesn't make you not wealthy, you still earn more money than a large portion of the nation/region. It just means you are a dumbass.

Of course all of the preceding means that we are taking an income view of wealth. If you took an asset view of wealth, that would be a different conversation.

BTW thank you spursgirl, keep doing what you are doing. It brings up interesting topics of conversation.

[LnGrrrR]

"wealthy" is a relative term.

Is 200K/year considered wealthy? To some, perhaps, to others, perhaps not.

It's a lot more than I make, but I would still consider that level of income to be between middle-class and upper middle-class.

I can not believe that some people would consider 200K "middle-class". Shoot, I think I'm middle-class and I'm the only person working, making roughly 40K a year for a family of three. (That's not including the free health care and a few other military benefits, of course.)

[LnGrrrR]

Try telling a New Yorker who makes ~$200K that he's "rich."

NY (and maybe a few other places) are definitely outliers.

[Winehole23]

Agreed.:toastDude: she shared it with the orcs who live down here. Orc questionaire.

Uruk hai!

[Winehole23]

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/jonathan-davis-totally-looks-like-uruk-hai2.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://orc-world.com/images/orcs.jpg


Welcome to the tribe, warrior.

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[Wild Cobra]

Dude: she shared it with the orcs who live down here. Orc questionaire.

Uruk hai!
If we are to be some TSR or other fantasy charactor, I choose to be a Grey Elf. Not an Orc.

Wait... Amend that... A Nabu, from the movie Avatar.

Yes, I agree. Supergirl is alright. I disagree with her politics, but otherwise think she's great.

[Wild Cobra]

yes, obviously where you live affects how far your money goes. Yet, people still make choices about where to live, and the prices of real estate/rent in Manhattan is what causes people to move out to Brooklyn and further out and commute in to work.

True.

I wonder if the NY subway system is subsidized, or if it6 has a consistent enough ridership to pay for itself.


If 50K is the median American income, 200K *HAS* to be considered "wealthy".

I would say it depends on how you choose to use the word wealthy. The word "wealth" is a noun, but it is nonspecific and could mean so many other things than money. Now "wealthy" is normally associated with finances, but that is still not the only meaning.

Even when considering money, I don't think I would use the $200k mark. I have made six figures for two years of my working life. Thing is, you start creeping into that next marginal bracket. I was at the 31% marginal tax rate. That, along with my 9% Oregon tax rate, was 40% just in income taxes, in the 31% federal marginal tax rate. Now that was before the Bush tax cuts. Now it's the 28% tax rate. A little better. However, once you make $200k+, you are in the 33% marginal tax rate unless you have large exemptions. When the tax cuts expire, that will be 36%. these added taxes make each earned dollar worth less.

This pay period, ending Friday, my gross will be 4,050.19 for two weeks. From that, I $690.26 will be deducted for Federal tax, $490.47 for Oregon tax. $247.19 for Social security and $57.82 for9 medicare. That's a total of $1485.47 coming out between the four. After my other contributions, I get a net of $2,271.72. Granted, not bad for two weeks. Now that is inline for a wage of $105k, but I don't normally make that much. We have a project going on at work, and I'm getting overtime hours. Still, I hate to think how much taxes I would pay if I was in that $200k range. Still not really enough to go mad with money. Sure, always have a nice car, some powered toys, and a great house, but it's not close to any glass ceiling.


What's also worth noting is that 50K figure is falling...the median American income has declined the last few years. While expenses keep going up.

Yes, but two things we must keep in check when considering that. First of all, many wage earners are working lower level jobs to be employed in this economy. The second is that we are losing more and more good blue collar jobs to other nations, because our corporate tax rates are killing business here. I wonder if they average in the unemployed also?

$50k isn't bad, but with DEQ regulations and the cost of living in Oregon, it is a pretty low number.

[Winehole23]

If we are to be some TSR or other fantasy charactor, I choose to be a Grey Elf. Not an Orc.In the nature of good-natured ribbing, how well does that line go over with the ladies? :lol


Wait... Amend that... A Nabu, from the movie Avatar.Nabu, from Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hr0&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&defl=en&q=define:nabu&sa=X&ei=6Dt6TOmTE8L7lwen8pTvCw&ved=0CBIQkAE


Yes, I agree. Supergirl is alright. I disagree with her politics, but otherwise think she's great.A kind comment from WC. That's unusual.

[Wild Cobra]

In the nature of good-natured ribbing, how well does that line go over with the ladies? :lol

Never tried it. give it a shot and let me know how it goes.


Nabu, from Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hr0&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&defl=en&q=define:nabu&sa=X&ei=6Dt6TOmTE8L7lwen8pTvCw&ved=0CBIQkAE

Well, I screwed up anyway. It's "Na' vi."


A kind comment from WC. That's unusual.

We all have our moments.

[SnakeBoy]

This pay period, ending Friday, my gross will be 4,050.19 for two weeks. From that, I $690.26 will be deducted for Federal tax, $490.47 for Oregon tax. $247.19 for Social security and $57.82 for9 medicare. That's a total of $1485.47 coming out between the four. After my other contributions, I get a net of $2,271.72.


Hey these are the numbers I was trying to get from you in the thread about taxes being too high. Off topic but I'd have to say I think your Federal tax & medicare tax are too low. That state income tax would drive me nuts though.



Still, I hate to think how much taxes I would pay if I was in that $200k range.


We paid 56k on 213k last year in Federal Income tax, a little low imo. It's Texas so no state income tax, just $5600 in property tax & we have an 8% sales tax.

I guess it just depends on what "wealthy" means to you. The liberal leaning folks seems to only view it as relative to other people. I look at it in terms of the life I live. $200k lets you live a very good middle class life style and actually pay for it without debt and at the same time save enough money so we will be able to continue that lifestyle throughout our retirement. I don't view that as "wealthy" but it's just a label so whatever. I have plenty of friends who make less than half what we do and live a "wealthier" lifestyle. Of course they are living paycheck to paycheck with a bunch of debt.

[Winehole23]

Well, I screwed up anyway. So did I.


We all have our moments.How true. :toast

[Stump]

"wealthy" is a relative term.


Is 200K/year considered wealthy? To some, perhaps, to others, perhaps not.


It's a lot more than I make, but I would still consider that level of income to be between middle-class and upper middle-class.
I realize the perception of wealth can vary, but I'd think 200K would be solidly entrenched in the upper middle-class.

[101A]

If 50K is the median American income, 200K *HAS* to be considered "wealthy".


Why, exactly?

The taxes paid on that 200K, versus the 50K, make the relative spending power of those two incomes quite a bit closer than the 4X multiple would appear at first blush.

Also, "wealth" is very much a perspective. From, probably, a majority of individual perspectives on the planet, nearly every American is "wealthy". I much more associate property accumulation, rather than raw income, as an indicator of "wealth". Many military officers, for example, due to their years of reasonable income, along with low expenses, coupled with a generous pension, retire "wealthy", although their income would never suggest they would.

My wife and I, on the other hand, each make good incomes (combined, above where you defined "wealthy"). But we have three children at home (who are going to go to college), parents and a brother that need help, and a market that has held our retirement accounts in check for years now. In terms of cash on hand, we are little more able to weather a loss of one, or both of our incomes for more than a minimum amount of time, than a family making far less than ours - AND we are conservative with our money; we hold no debt other than our mortgage, don't have cable or satellite TV, etc.

Wealth is relative - not absolute. The middle class is, indeed, very wide.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey these are the numbers I was trying to get from you in the thread about taxes being too high.
Well, I won't post my normal pay. This is a bit more than my normal pay.

Off topic but I'd have to say I think your Federal tax & medicare tax are too low. That state income tax would drive me nuts though.

If you reduce my gross by my medical insurance payment, then it comes out right at 1.45%.


We paid 56k on 213k last year in Federal Income tax, a little low imo. It's Texas so no state income tax, just $5600 in property tax & we have an 8% sales tax.

I don't think the government needs that much from us. I think you're getting robbed.


I guess it just depends on what "wealthy" means to you. The liberal leaning folks seems to only view it as relative to other people. I look at it in terms of the life I live. $200k lets you live a very good middle class life style and actually pay for it without debt and at the same time save enough money so we will be able to continue that lifestyle throughout our retirement. I don't view that as "wealthy" but it's just a label so whatever. I have plenty of friends who make less than half what we do and live a "wealthier" lifestyle. Of course they are living paycheck to paycheck with a bunch of debt.

I don't consider it wealthy either. Just comfortable. So you earned your way into society that allows you to have better toys, and the other kids are jealous. Am I looking at that wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

I realize the perception of wealth can vary, but I'd think 200K would be solidly entrenched in the upper middle-class.
Who cares when the liberals keep trying to knock down those with money?

$200k simply makes you buy more expensive things. More debt sometimes, more risk. Still, how can anyone attempt to say that someone earning that much should pay a higher percentage in taxes than someone else? they already pay more at the same percentage. The idea that "they can afford to pay more" reeks with Marxism.

[LnGrrrR]

Why, exactly?

The taxes paid on that 200K, versus the 50K, make the relative spending power of those two incomes quite a bit closer than the 4X multiple would appear at first blush.

Also, "wealth" is very much a perspective. From, probably, a majority of individual perspectives on the planet, nearly every American is "wealthy". I much more associate property accumulation, rather than raw income, as an indicator of "wealth". Many military officers, for example, due to their years of reasonable income, along with low expenses, coupled with a generous pension, retire "wealthy", although their income would never suggest they would.

My wife and I, on the other hand, each make good incomes (combined, above where you defined "wealthy"). But we have three children at home (who are going to go to college), parents and a brother that need help, and a market that has held our retirement accounts in check for years now. In terms of cash on hand, we are little more able to weather a loss of one, or both of our incomes for more than a minimum amount of time, than a family making far less than ours - AND we are conservative with our money; we hold no debt other than our mortgage, don't have cable or satellite TV, etc.

Wealth is relative - not absolute. The middle class is, indeed, very wide.

I would say that 150K after taxes is much more "wealthy" than, say, 45K after taxes. You mention the three kids going to college, parent and brother, etc etc. But a family making 45K a year after taxes either lives on ramen noodles or just can't do that.

As well, people with 150K can save far more effectively than those with 45K, giving them a cushion as you pointed out.

Military officers that retire at 0-5 or so should be considered wealthy; they make a good deal per year when you add in benefits. The SMSgt E-8 who retires after 24 years? Not quite as wealthy, on average.

[LnGrrrR]

Note: I don't equate "wealthy" with "rich". Rich is probably 500K per year or so.

[Winehole23]

Is the division a simple level of income? Don't expenses always count against it?


We spend a lot, but we make a lot.

[Wild Cobra]

I would say that 150K after taxes is much more "wealthy" than, say, 45K after taxes.

It's not just that simple.

If we compare two same families of four, one at $50k, and another at $200k, both parents working. What are the differences? Lets say both rent so there is no tax deduction there. Just keeping the basics in.

Both contribute 12% to their 401k's. With the attributes I used and the 2009 tax year, I ended up with the $50k family having a federal income tax system burden of $1,235. The $200k family at $173,790.

Earned Income after 401k and medical was $41,790 and $173,790. Taxable after the standard deduction and exemptions was $15,790 and $155,090.

Federal Tax is $2,271 and $31,689.

Now we come to tax credits. The $50k family gets $3,541 in credits. Making work pay, earned income credit, and child credits. The $200k family only gets part of the making work pay for $324.

After we apply the credits, the $50k family gets a check from the IRS for $1270. The $200k family pays a total $31,365 in taxes.

Now we haven't even looked as SS and medicare. The $50k family pays $3,560 and the $200k family $14,735. The federal burden of each is now $2,290 and $46,100. Net income before other factors is now $$39,500 vs. $127,690. Although the gross is 4 times the amount, the net is less than 3 times.

What if you live in my state... We have no sales tax, but a 5%, 7%, and 9% marginal rate income tax system. The 7% kicks in at about the $6,000 taxable, the 9% kicks in at about the $15,000 taxable.

Oregon allows you to deduct off your earned income the standard deduction of $3,895 and the first $5,850 of your federal liability. Taxable is now $35,624 and $164,045. Taxes are $2,774 and $13,847 and exemptions are deducted from that at $176 each for a tax liability of $2,070 and $13,847. Oregon grants 6% of your federal EIC for state EIC. The $2,070 tax liability is now reduced to $2,026. The large wage earner pays more than six times the taxes in Oregon, when only making four times more.

Final net income after 401k, medical, federal and state taxes, and social security and medicare is $37,474 vs. $113,843. The earner making four times the money only gets to keep three times as much.


You mention the three kids going to college, parent and brother, etc etc. But a family making 45K a year after taxes either lives on ramen noodles or just can't do that.
Is it society's responsibility for a family that has grown beyond it's means of support? There is always community college, educational credits, loans, and grants. College grants are real generous, and only the lower wage families can get them.

As well, people with 150K can save far more effectively than those with 45K, giving them a cushion as you pointed out.
True. The only real solution is for others to better themselves for better employment. Employers don't want people who rely on others anyway.

Military officers that retire at 0-5 or so should be considered wealthy; they make a good deal per year when you add in benefits. The SMSgt E-8 who retires after 24 years? Not quite as wealthy, on average.
Has the system changed that much?

When I was in, you only received 50% of your base pay only after 20 years, and another 2.5% per year up to 30 years for up to 75% base pay. What is it now?

Actually, here is a new pay chart:

M O N T H L Y B A S I C P A Y T A B L E
EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2010 (http://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/paytables/Paytable_2010.pdf)

Base pay for the O-5 is and for the E-8 at 24 years each is $8,198.40 and $3,484.50. At 60% base pay, these would be $4,919.04 and $2,090.70.

Do you consider $4,919 monthly to be wealthy? I don't. Ten years ago, I was making $6,060 monthly, plus any overtime. After taxes and contributing to my 401k, etc. it wasn't as much net as I felt like I earned.

And they say the military doesn't pay well. Go in as an officer, or become an officer while in, and retire at 20+.

[LnGrrrR]

The earner making four times the money only gets to keep three times as much.


That, to me, is still wealthy. If you have income that is higher than 100K, after taxes? That's wealthy. And it's probably more than a great majority of people make in this country. If you're in the top 10 percentile of household incomes, then you should be considered "wealthy" (leaving out ridiculously high expense areas like metro NY city.)



Is it society's responsibility for a family that has grown beyond it's means of support? There is always community college, educational credits, loans, and grants. College grants are real generous, and only the lower wage families can get them.


I think you missed my point. CC said he doesn't live a "wealthy" lifestyle because of three kids and this and that. But that doesn't really play into my definition of "wealth". Wealth is MOSTLY about making money. (I might accept an argument that a person who makes over 100K isn't wealthy because they don't own anything of true value, but those are rare exceptions... like NBA players who go broke after having millions. They are considered 'wealthy' because they're making money, but if they give that money away/waste it, then they stop being 'wealthy' as soon as the check stops coming in.)


Has the system changed that much?


Not that I know of; sounds the same. I'm trying to go officer, but with the new kid, the increased work tempo, and the increased deployment rates, it's hard to take more than 2 classes per semester. If I ever get my bachelor's finished, I plan on trying to go officer. (If I made captain in the usual four years, I'd get more back from retirement than if I retired as a CMSgt with 20 years.)

[Wild Cobra]

I agree wealth and rich are two different things. Still, the lower class family has access to full grants for college. The only stickler is the student must maintain a certain GPA and go full time. The wealthy/rich don't get this huge benefit, which is paid for, basically by them!

It is natural for there to be a distribution of wealth. If everyone were forced to be equal, it takes away incentive to strive to be better. I am appalled by people who want to benefit from other people's good fortune. It is not right to In this way, I see liberals as anti-christian:

Exodus 20:17: "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

If someone wants more, hey need to strive to improve their situation. Not ask the government to take from others and redistribute to them.

[Wild Cobra]

Not that I know of; sounds the same. I'm trying to go officer, but with the new kid, the increased work tempo, and the increased deployment rates, it's hard to take more than 2 classes per semester. If I ever get my bachelor's finished, I plan on trying to go officer. (If I made captain in the usual four years, I'd get more back from retirement than if I retired as a CMSgt with 20 years.)
At least you will get the better of the two ranks.

I sometimes wish I stayed in instead of getting out. I don't know what rank I would have achieved, but 1/2 of base would be a nice bonus to my current income. hard to look back though. If I stayed, I would have missed the opportunity that put me where I am today. The skills I learned in the military went from a $50k job in 1980 to a $40k job in 1992, because the troubleshooting skill required dropped dramatically from using complex test equipment and component repair, to changing boards if the alarm light lite. Technology really hurt some jobs. In 1994, I got a break because of my troubleshooting ability and learned a whole new field OJT. I now work on complex automation equipment. Breaks into this field are few.