Yes, but if your dad was an electrician and you went to a state school and then started your own business and made millions of dollars that doesn’t make you “upper class”.
You can’t earn your way into the upper class.
Class distinctions–to the extent they actually exist–aren’t solely about money. Of course class is something made up and exists only in the imaginations of certain people. It can’t be quantified by income levels.
Only if that is how you define “upper class”. It’s tautological - of course, if you define “upper class” as aristocracy, then it takes several generations to get in. But that’s not how I define it.
It’s the traditional way. See post #7, first three paragraphs.
Yes, it does.
Only by a definition of “upper class” that requires not earning your way into it. As I said, that’s a tautology.
Fewer than you would think. I think most trust fund kids are upper/upper middle class but a lot of those wealthy folks don’t do the trust fund thing.
Post #7, first three paragraphs is utter crap. One example: Bill/Hillary Clinton. Undeniably upper class. Earned their way into it. No inheritance needed.
The US is so uncomfortable with class that we call everyone between “homeless wino” and “Warren Buffet” middle class. Upper middle class came about as a way to describe the people with big houses in the nice part of town who drive luxury cars and send their kids to pricy schools.
OK, I have to think being elected President earns you as many invitations to as many exclusive dinner parties at as many mansions as you care to attend. One might say that you can earn your way into the upper class, but you can’t do it just with a wheelbarrow full of money.
If we’re just going to say “upper class” == “a lot of money”, then there’s not much point to the concept of “class”. We can just talk about income and net worth, and stop talking about social class. I don’t want to defend the concept of social class too strongly, since nowadays it really is true that a wheelbarrow full of money can really can buy you all sorts of strange new respect. But there’s a social difference between a Harvard professor from an old family with income $X, and a used car dealer from Omaha even if he makes $10X.
It is a matter of where you stand on the spectrum. No doubt to most folks (for example) a corporate lawyer owning a nice house and a fancy car, sending his or her kid to a private school, looks “rich” or “upper class” - but that same lawyer is looking at their clients, who are CEOs of corporations making tens of millions on stock options and shareholding families owning sizable bits of major corporations, and to him or her, those people are “rich” - while he or she is just a hired hand.
If we push the notion of “rich” or “upper class” downwards to include well-off professionals like lawyers and doctors, the term is watered down when applied to CEOs and shareholders who have many multiples of their income.
Bullshit.
My theory is kind of the opposite. If we push the definition if “well off” to include only the 1%, we develop an unrealistic picture of the economic life of our country. We gloss over a lot of the harsh realities of people who are “middle class” but face real financial difficulties.
The median household income of the US is only $50,000. There are neighborhoods in my city where household incomes are in the $20,000s. Things like health insurance, reliable transportation, retirement money, and emergency funds are simply not a reality for much of the middle class.
I’ve been on the lower end and the upper end of middle class, and they are massively different experiences. Everything from marriage patterns to food consumption to level of autonomy at work are affected.
I am sympathetic to the “100k doesn’t buy you a lot” argument, because I’m living it. But it does but healthcare, good schools, healthy food, safe housing, career opportunity and protection from common economic shocks. That’s huge.
Or put this way- when I was poor, I could manage an unexpected expense of about $20 before it started to affect me. Now, I can manage an unexpected expense of up to $200 before it starts to hurt my budget. That is a massive lifestyle change. Because the world doles out a lot of $20.00 expenses and a lot fewer $200 ones.
Now if I were richer, I could manage a $2,000 unexpected expense without feeling it. But honestly, that would not be as big of a leap on a day by day basis than the point where you do or don’t fret about having to fill up the gas tank or get a filling.
To quote Chris Rock
Of course it’s on a spectrum. It’s in the name itself: “upper middle class”. The upper end of the spectrum of the middle class which in itself sits on a spectrum.
Also I think in modern society, specifically American society, yes. 90% of what it takes is a wheelbarrow full of cash to become classy. If you’re the used car salesman in Omaha, nothing is stopping you from buying a summer home in Martha’s Vineyard, sending your kid to Exeter, and donating your way to a fancy $2000/plate dinner. Just like nobody’s turning down Bill Clinton away at the door, I bet that even the Koch brothers, as loathesome as they are, attend their fair share of parties on the merits of their checkbooks alone.
I think historically, the “middle” class was just as rich if not more so than the upper class, they just got there by working instead of inheriting wealth and extracting rents. So I can understand how “class” and “wealth” are different things. You get a lot of this in 19th century English literature – Dukes and Lords all lamenting their dwindling wealth while dirty railroad and coal mine owners get fabulously wealthy.
How are they not? I don’t think anyone was trying to insult them by claiming they are. Bill went to fancy schools, was the POTUS and they a net worth of about $80 million. If they aren’t upper class in U.S. terms, then nobody is.
I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me or not. 
My point is in response to a previous point lamenting the use of the term “upper middle class”, presumably because Americans calling themselves “upper middle class” were uncomfortable calling themselves “rich”.
Yes, there is by definition a spectrum “middle class-upper middle class”. That fact, however, is not in itself a valid response to the objection that the spectrum is mis-applied, that people who call themselves “upper middle class” are really “rich” or “upper class”.
My point was that, while no doubt to many Americans the “upper middle class” appears “rich” or “upper class” to them, to people who happen to be in the “upper middle class” it does not - because they can see, from where they are situated, that the people on the tier above them are much better off.
Although I looked it up and both Shaq and Wyc Grousbeck, owner of the Boston Celtics and the last person to sign Shaq’s checks are both worth about $350 million.
Oprah would beg to differ.
Some partners in big law firms make tens of millions of dollars.
it only takes about $388 k a year to be in the top 1%. A lot by most standards, but hardly own your own jet money. The problem is, once you start getting a bit of money, you compare yourself to everyone who has more. I remember when I was a consultant in the Big-4, some partners were complaining that there were some investment bankers a few years out of business school who made more than they did. And those I-bankers probably complain about the hedge fund guys making an order of magnitude more. Show me someone with $500 million and I’ll show you a frustrated billionaire.
I think you’re confusing upper class with nobility. In England, with the right genes, you can be upper class with no money and eccentric habits.
It is possible to have lots of money and no class - look at a lot of the characters Rodney Dangerfield played. But I don’t think that happens all that often in real life.
Look at JFK. Upper class, sure, but because his father pushed him into it. His father, remember, was a bootlegger turned ambassador. Do you think he was upper class?
Some partners, sure. But they are hardly representative of lawyers in general, even of corporate lawyers in general. Only a tiny percentage of the top lawyers at the biggest firms are making that kind of money.
Objectively, the term “upper middle class” applied to lawyers beacuse, objectively, they tended to be making a level of income (and enjoy, despite lawyer jokes, a level of social respect) that was greater than middle class, but not sufficient to propell them into the ranks of the wealthy and upper-class.
It is true some tiny percentage of lawyers are in fact that wealthy - but they are not representative of the group as a whole.
My point is that, to someone who is earning a middle-class or lower-middle-class level of salary, no doubt they would appear wealthy - but objectively, as a generality it is not the case (again, aside from anomalies).
Some stats:
I think Bill was raised working class while Hilary came from a different social strata. Obviously they’re both different now but it was always part of what I liked about him. I felt he at least had some understanding of my concerns and background while his opponents did not.
Is “upper class” exactly the same thing as “rich”? If it is, then why not just say “rich”?