On a recent thread, one of the posters referred to me as “rich.” When I contradicted that assumption, it was pointed out to me that the median income in the USA is around $50,000 and since my salary is almost double that, I would be considered upper middle class.
To me, upper middle class is someone that makes over $250,000 per year. Making six figures in 2006 is not what it was in 1986. It simply isn’t that much to support an average family of four. I’ll admit I am able to afford a nice home in a nice neighborhood, a vacation a year, a cleaning lady once a week and a pool service. Does that mean I am upper middle class? I can not afford to drive a Lexus or fly first class or spend $250 on a bottle of wine. The help I have at home is necessary so I can work the 60 hours a week it takes to make the salary I do.
So I am throwing this out there. What income would a family need to earn for you to consider them rich? What income would they need for you to consider them upper middle class?
To me, “rich” is if you can quit working tromorrow and continue living at your same standard of living. If you still have to work (though many rich people chose to) you are still middle class. Few people are rich. “Upper middle class” is a lot more nebulous because it depends on where you live. I would definitley say that if you can pay your your kids college at a college you find “acceptable” and you don’t need them to borrow money, you are upper-middle class.
Your income fits upper middle class to me, and maybe even higher. I could not afford a maid or a pool or anything like that. I probably fall into the lower middle class myself. But no, you’re not rich.
To me, if a person has a big house with an in-ground pool, and/or any sort of household help (maid, cook) they are rich. Someone who has a six-figure income is rich. Upper middle class is to not have any of those things, but to be rich enough that you seldom think about the cost of things, and haven’t shopped in a Wal Mart or other discount store for many years.
I think so, yes. I live in Fairfax County, which is one of the top 3 wealthiest counties in the U.S. (cite), and even around here people making six figures (or close) are definitely considered upper-middle class – but not rich, you’re right about that.
Those things would make you upper class, not upper-middle.
I think it was John Jacob Astor who said (in about 1910 when a million dollars was worth a lot more than it is now) “A man with a million dollars in the bank is as well off as if he were rich.”
“Rich” is too relative a term to have much meaning on its own. If you make over $30,000 a year–which probably includes most of us here–you’re in the top 10% worldwide for wealth. Even in the US, there’s a big disparity. For instance, every time I go to South Dakota for family events, I’m one of the richest people in the state, but when I come back home to northern Virginia I go crashing back down the ranks. Where do I fall?
To me, the differences between having money, being upper middle class, and being one of the rich have mostly to do with your attitude towards your assets. Anyone can have money, but to be upper middle class you have to fit into upper middle class culture (see David Brooks’ “Bobos In Paradise” for a great overview of that), and to be one of the rich, having money has to be pretty much second nature to you.
You mean salary? The non-working rich generally have considerable income from their various investments.
$100,000 per year is roughly top 15% of US household incomes. It would undoubtedly put you a bit higher in terms of individual income. I think it’s not unreasonable to consider someone who makes more than 85% of the countries population to be “upper middle class”. You are not, however, rich. I’d save that for the top 1% of wealth (which is not necessarily the same as income).
But I’d say in purely financial terms it varies with where you live in the US and the choices you make in terms of income vs. overhead. No matter what your income is, if you maintain a high overhead you’ll never have enough. Some locations necessitate higher overhead than others (basic cost of living is far higher) so people lose perspective that they’re probably doing pretty well. While I agree that some overhead choices are absolutely required-I think most of the time we delude ourselves about what is and isn’t absolutely necessary.
However, in my experience 250K (combined) in expensive areas of the US makes you upper-middle class if you’re just starting out and didn’t have that income before real estate went crazy. If you’ve had that type of income for a while (like say, you’re older), you’ve probably stockpiled enough money to be considered rich because you aren’t paying out the higher costs people have to deal with today.
This is all assuming you exercise reasonable prudence in your financial choices. My mother works in finance and routinely sees people with extremely high incomes who are living paycheck-to-paycheck based on poor choices.
Another hidden cost is the amount of money you used to finance obtaining the type of income you have (i.e. for people not living off of assets, educational costs). This is increasing year by year.
I’d put you as “well off”, a step above “comfortable” (which I am), and “well off” is one step below “rich”. Then there’s “filthy rich”, “filthy stinking rich”, and so forth.
What you earn doesn’t mean a whole lot without context. I earn a rather nice “professional” income. But living in the San Jose “Bay area”, I can’t buy a house without making some serious sacrifices*. OTOH, I have no debts, own a late model coupe outright (nothing fancy), and have a nice amount of disposable income. I own nice clothes- but they are mostly bought from eBay and such like, almost never “full retail”. So “comfortable”.
But, you’re not too far from “rich”, so that poster wasn’t out of line.
The fact that you *have to * work 60 hours a week is certainly a factor.
Reasonable house in decent area= $750K. :eek: Small, cheap condo= $400K. :eek: :eek:
While in parts of the country these are nearly synonymous statements, in some housing markets (e.g. San Jose) they are almost unrelated. It’s hard to call someone who can only afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment “rich”.
I think the local cost of living is relevant when applying these labels. The same salary may allow a person to live an upper middle class lifestyle in one area, but barely get by in another. It’s like exchange rates – your money goes a lot further in Peru than in Tokyo.
You’re correct - being “rich” can’t be a raw number, it has to be related somehow to the cost of living where you live. Low six figures is absolutely not rich on Long Island because of the high taxes and the cost of homes. It’s not poor, of course, but it’s not exceptional and you certainly couldn’t quit your job tomorrow and maintain the same standard of living. Which is why, eventually, everybody here is going to end up moving to North Carolina.
*Waves back. * Geez, it’s ridiculous. Thankgawd the rents aren’t so bad. My friends from out of the area can’t believe that I earn what I earn, but still live in a small apartment. I have a friend who is a SECURITY GUARD who owns a house (in NV). Grrrr. But it looks like the bubble is at least getting a slow leak, if not bursting yet. Maybe we’ll both be able to buy something next year, eh?
On the other hand, I just bought a brand-new top of the line Fugitsu laptop with cash, so I’m not hurting.
Because lots of people work just as hard as you, and *don’t * have that crap? :rolleyes:
How is it that these sorts of threads always result in people simultaneously crowing about how much money they make, detailing how well they live, and protesting about how “not rich” they are? And exactly how far back in one’s head can one’s eyes roll before they become irretrievable? Tune in and find out!
