“Upper class” is a level of “rich”.
It isn’t exactly the same. ‘Upper class’ implies some type combination of money, education, basic social graces or unusual skills that separate them from most other people. I dispute the people that claim you have to be born into it. That type of class barely even exists in the U.S. in multi-generational terms. Even the richest families rise and fall fairly quickly. You may be a direct descendant of the Vanderbilts or Astors but that and $5 million will just get you a starter summer home in the Hamptons today just like anyone else.
However, you can’t just a take a regular person and hand them a tremendous amount of money and have them instantly be upper class. That is what large lotteries do and there are plenty of movies based on that theme. A random guy from a trailer park that hits a $400 million lottery is certainly rich but in no way upper class.
If that “random guy” lasts a few decades and learns how to manage the wealth without flaming out, he will be “upper class”.
Sure, being upper class in the U.S. doesn’t require any particular bloodlines like it does in some societies. That concept barely makes any sense here. It is just requires following basic social norms that other upper class people do, a large pile of cash and the foresight to use it both semi-tastefully and responsibly. One key feature is that upper class people don’t see their wealth as a consumable commodity that has to be burned through in their lifetime. They look beyond that to philanthropy or to provide for their descendants in some ways (even though that may be minimal in the case of people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet).
Most importantly, they want to see their money grow in some way over time rather than treating it purely as a personal toy even if they have to relinquish direct control over some of it (e.g., funding college professorships, starting a museum or setting up a lasting trust to help some cause or group of people).
And some wealthy families have had their wealth split after a few generations so many times that their children can’t “cut” the class barrier, even with trust funds.
I have a friend who is a trust fund child - a great great grandchild of one of the richest men at the turn of the 20th century. But a 120 years of spending down and splitting in each successive generation, and while he has a trust fund, and it might even be enough to live off of, it isn’t enough to live off of and provide an upper class lifestyle. If you meet him - he is middle class in many ways (he also has chosen that presentation). His son will not be anything other than middle class - although his father was still upper class.
Seems to me that it breaks down like this:
Upper class: People who live off of investments and/or ownership of real-estate, entire companies, etc… Being a partner in a law/consulting/architecture/etc… firm doesn’t really count, unless you’re maybe founding partner of a HUGE multinational firm. This is the microscopically tiny group of people who have that sort of multigenerational wealth and have for quite a long time.
Upper Middle: People who still work for a living, but have significant incomes. Incomes large enough to allow them to indulge in things that were previously the exclusive province of the upper class- multiple international vacations before they’re retirement age, private schools for the children, larger and more opulent houses than necessary, and some kinds of luxury vehicles. Not Bentleys and Maybachs, but Mercedes-Benzes, BMW and Lexus for sure.
Middle: The traditional middle class. Work for a living, and have enough spare income to not live paycheck-to-paycheck. Enough income and savings to actually own homes, take vacations, etc… although usually more in the 2000-2500 sq ft variety, and to Niagara Falls/Grand Canyon/Yosemite/NYC by Southwest Airlines.
Where it gets blurry are with really wealthy businessmen- the Warren Buffets, the Bill Gates, the Jerry Joneses of the world. They’re all solidly middle-class by values, upbringing and values, but are probably actually richer than most “upper class” people. Where do they sit?
There’s also a certain blurriness between upper middle and middle. 2 parents and one kid with a household income of $110k kind of straddles that line in most places- that’s enough to save up for trips to Europe and drive relatively new cars, but not enough to live off of any kind of income or have a 4000 sq ft house in a tony suburb.
Class does not relate to actual wealth in the UK. I could be penniless and living on the streets, but I would still be ‘middle class’ because I was privately educated, went to university, know how to play tennis and which knife and fork to use at dinner.
Class here is about background, family, connections and behaviours. Kate Middleton is the future Queen of the UK, but she’s still middle class. Tony Blair was Prime Minister, but he’s still middle class. Maybe ‘upper’.
Wayne Rooney earns £300,000 a week and will never be middle-class.
I do think some of it is age-related: my wife and I are in our mid-30s and probably sit in the educated middle-classes. Depending on the direction our careers take in the next couple of decades we could possibly move into the upper-middle classes by the time we’re 55-65 (e.g. we could progress to senior surgeon / managing director, or we could stay as GP / middle-management).
Well said. Upper-middle-class professionals such as highly educated barristers, surgeons, university lecturers, judges, architects and highly paid managers/entrepreneurs such as MBA degree holding upper management executives and business owners may not share the same income level or posses equal access to wealth, however, they do share a relationship. They both share a set of life experiences which set them apart from the other social classes in Western capitalist societies. For instance, they have accumulated a large amount of cultural capital through being educated at the better (and private) schools. They’ve received advanced degrees beyond a bachelors degree from the more prestigious universities. They are familiar with the world’s major works of art and elements of what is considered high culture. They are generally articulate, self-confident and well-spoken, no doubt because of their expensive educations and placement in positions of authority. Their social positions usually put them in positions of respect from other members of their society, thus many are accorded titles such as Dr or Professor. Because of their lofty position in society they often have a large swath of social connections, which often serve to facilitate access to resources and assuage problems.
There are some common material trends within this class too, despite there being large differences in wealth. One of which is a private education for their off-spring. If private fee-paying schools are for some reason not an option, then you can be sure they will seek out the highest rated publicly funded institutions for their kids’ educations. Education is the highest value of this class, and most are willing to sacrifice whatever possible to educate their children to a similar level as themselves. Travel is another necessity for this class, especially foreign travel. Certain creature comforts are also appreciated if their resources will allow. Certain material items are often associated with this class and for good reason. Examples of which are European automobiles (particularly Saabs, Volvos, BMW’s, Audi’s, Jaguar’s, Range Rover’s…and of course, the ubiquitous Mercedes E-Class), large houses with ‘character’, summer homes in refined ‘authentic’ locations such as Provence or Tuscany if they are British or Cape Cod or Maine if American. Good quality clothing made of all natural fibres and designed in subtle understated styles is also highly appreciated, no matter what the upper-middle-class individual’s income level may be.
So, the line about Rooney never being upper class no matter how much he makes applies to the US as much as to the UK or Spain.
A hint: when in order to find a counter example of an alleged broad sociological phenomenon you have to reach for a former US president your argument is in serious, serious trouble.
A hint: when you categorically state that the only way to be upper class is to be born into it, one counterexample is all that’s needed to refute it.
It’s a good question.
My thinking on the matter is this:
“Class”, as a concept, is made up of a number of elements - social (as in, the level of culture, education, etc.); reputational, based on what you do (some jobs have higer status than others); income amount and type (whether you get your money by the sweat of your brow, inherit it, etc.); and finally, amount of accumulated wealth that you own.
Now typically, all of these things go together - an “upper middle class” person very typically has a post-graduate education, has a job that enjoys relatively high status like doctor or lawyer, earns a relatively high income by the sweat of his or her brow, and has accumulated/or is on track to accumulate enough wealth to retire comfortably.
But it is not always the case that these elements line up neatly, and “the rich” are often an example of that.
Some are “rich” because their families gradually accumulated, generation after generation, sufficient wealth to fund a self-perpetuating cycle of extreme affluence - and have developed a culture and habits to match. This is what we think of as the “upper class” - a group of interconnected families with influence and wealth, sharing a certain culture.
But becomming rich is such an anomaly that many who achieve it often do not fit the pattern - entreprenuers, film stars, lottery winners, sports heroes, even really enterprising and successful members of the upper middle class - all can and do become “rich”. Sometimes very rich. Are they members of the “upper class” or not? That is, is it possible to truly be “upper class” merely by having one or two of the characteristics associated - such as extreme wealth? Is a lottery winner “upper class” if she goes from a trailer park to a mansion after winning $500 million in the lottery? What about an entreprenuer who invents a magic gizmo in her dad’s garage, and ends up as rich as Bill Gates?
There, opinions differ.
Oh, they’re part of the white overclass, all right, but not its top hereditary tier, the traditional attitude of which always has been: “It’s the end of the season . . . Let’s be vulgar and invite the President!” Some presidents come from that class, some don’t. Clinton doesn’t, it’s a matter of his background.
Yes – but Nixon never was. See post #5. (And boy did Nixon know it! That sense of social inferiority was the root of his lifelong persecution-mania and Napoleon complex. You can read about that in Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein.)
If you define “upper class” as hereditary, then obviously you have to be born into it. But that’s a wrong (and trivial) definition.
He had all kinds of problems, and he certainly was not born into the upper class. I don’t think he even had very much money until after 1960 when he got into high priced law. Not everyone is comfortable moving up. Reagan was, I don’t think Carter has been particularly comfortable being in the upper class.
Middle Class: Attends the ballet occasionally
Upper Middle Class: Season tickets to the ballet
Upper Class: Gives endowments to the ballet
Super Rich: Mistress is a famous ballerina. 
It’s the nature of the American upper class as it is, and has been for centuries. You can also marry into it. Otherwise, I think you’d have to be raised by rich-if-not-upper-class parents and get the right acculturation and schooling growing up to be accepted in the club.