Presuming that your comment refers to the “well off person who pisses money away and makes terrible decisions and hates their job,” then, no, economically they are not on a lower rung. They may or may not be on a socioeconomically lower rung.
I think your comment has more to do with your estimation of such a person than anything else.
Certainly, anyone making more than $50K is upper class, because after all, many professors don’t make much more than that, and we know they’re all ivory tower elitists 
$20k middle class? Not in this country. The lower class is not the destitute, it’s the proletariat. If you are in danger from your work, if you make your living from the skill of your hands or the strength of your back, if you have to account for your time to a boss, you’re a prole. If a car, a computer, a TV, or a gadget makes you go “oooohh,” you’re a prole. Your boss might be, too. Yeah, a longshoreman with 20 years seniority in a union town might pull down $80K, but he isn’t middle class.
The upper class owns things – big things, old things, important things. They endow universities, they serve on commissions, they write really big checks. They only work if they want to, usually doing something worthy which pays a pittance (to them – it’s quite astronomical to us).
The middle class is the buffer between the upper and the lower – they take direction from the upper class and translate it into orders for the lower. They make decisions, they think for a living, they don’t get sweaty unless they want to. It used to be that a college degree would pull you out of the lower class, but not any more – now, there are so many colleges churning out so many barely-educated “college graduates” that even Stanford can’t do it for you without help.
There are grades within the classes, and it’s definitely nicer to be upper-middle class than middle-middle, but you still work for a living, and you still have to worry about sliding into the proletariat.
Not in Manhattan, I’m not. (and actually it’s probably a lot less than $200k)
If we moved out near our friends place in PA, we would surly be a bunch of wealthy city-slickers.
If you graduate from Stanford, there really is not excuse why you can’t get at least a middle class job within a few years, unless you study somthing totaly bogus.
But you are right. To really get ahead, you need to graduate from certain schools with high grades. I used to work with MIT grads and I can’t figure out why they aren’t designing rockets and shit instead of counting MRO parts.
I agree with this. I am not in the middle class now (my income right now is zero, before that it was around 15k a year), but growing up in the middle class endowed me with certain privileges, like having all my immunization shots, and being taught to read at home (not that people who make less money wouldn’t be able to do that, but the time would be more scarce). How much you make a year is only part of the picture.
Let me throw this question out there, especially for those who believe in a very large middle class: Would you consider the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, to be a member of the middle class? His salary is about $190,000, which some consider in the middle class range; and reportedly lives in a rather standard house in DC – not a Donald Rumseld or Hillary Clinton type mansion – and owns a house in rural Illinois. His last non-public service job was as a high school wrestling coach.
So, what say you? Is a politician who is about as wealthy as a successful small businessman a member of the middle class, or does his occupation elevate him?
Gee… and when I moved to America from the Old World, I was told that there was no such thing as “classes” in the New World…
:eek:
Well, if he spent all his life in public service, and does not have a large nest egg he built up from business, or from inheritance or marriage or consulting, then, in DC at least, he’s probably on the borderline. After all, if you live and work in two different places, you have a need for a second residence, it’s not just a luxury.
However, consider that if and when he retires, he can probably find a high 6 or maybe even 7-digit paying job for a consulting or lobbying firm, which would instantaneously propel him to upper class.
Elevate? Maybe in the 18th century Congress was an upper-class occupation, but modern Congresscritters are mere hirelings. Unless he has upper-class credentials independent of his work (inherited wealth, etc.), he’s solidly middle class (very top of the middle class, admittedly).
At some point, his career n politics may even have elevated him TO the middle class, but I don’t know his bio.
I think that’s why there’s so much argument here. We don’t have well-established classes. Basically, it’s all one big fuzzy group.
Here is a [link](http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/wikipedia/Class_in_the_United_
States,_circa_2004.shtml) that explains the difference between the classes. However, somewhere I have a book that covers many more details.
Being a member of the upper class isn’t easy to do even with a lot of money. The fact is that it is only until the second generation or farther down the line that someone becomes upper class. A whole lot of money only means that you are “neuvo-rich”. An example of this would be “The Beverly Hillbillies” or to be closer to reality a janitor that hits the lotto for $200 million. True upper class people do not have to work for a living. Good examples of this would be many of our founding fathers like George Washington, John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson. Benjamin Franklin did not fit into that exclusive club since he was a printer by trade. He had more money than Jefferson, but he was not in their club. John Rockafeller was not upper class but his family all are. Sam Walton was rich as hell but still he was just a good ole boy. His family have divided up his money and they are members of the upper class. I went to a college that had several students from Charleston, SC’s society set and some were in my fraternity. One day I made some remark to the effect that my dream was to have a million dollars. One of my fellow pledges sneered at my remark and said “I’d rather have the right name than have a million dollars.” To me that shows it isn’t money, but a state of mind.
One layer of class that is left out of the above link is the Upper Lower Class. These are the people that keep the wheels turning in our society. They are the supervisor’s, craftsmen and top sergeants. It isn’t always true but two signs of someone being in this class is that they wear uniforms and/or have a ring of keys handing off their belts. I’m not sure this is entirely true, but in a way Colin Powell went from Upper Lower Class to Upper Middle Class when he retired as a General and became Secretary of State.
The book I mentioned says that Americans won’t admit that a class system exists, even to themselves, but in fact our class system is more rigid than in many countries. However we have more mobility up and down, if not entirely for ourselves but for our children.
here’s an issue that hasn’t been mentioned yet in this thread: satisfaction
If you ask the longshoreman, he’ll tell you that he is middle class, and proud of it.
So is the college prof who makes half as much money, and the accountant who makes twice as much. The reason is that they are all satisfied with their lives.
As long as you have buddies to drink beer with in a redneck bar, or espresso in a campus coffee house, and all of you at the table are satisfied with your social status, then you are middle class.
If you would like to have more money( for a few extras), you are middle class.
If you need more money (for basic necessities), you are lower class.
(And if you need more money for a yacht, you are upper class.)
I remember a college cultural anthro class where the prof presented a credible study that people almost never climb up out of the socio-economic class they are born into. You may see some movement up or down within the original strata, but hardly ever a full-on move up.
I consider myself upper-middle-class, at least for CA. If I lived somewhere else, I would probably be considered lower-upper-class!
I found the book, CLASS:A guide through the American Status System by Paul Fussell (1983). Giving it a fast glance I found this:
Also it is not lower class but rather prole (short form of proletariat).
chappachula a longshoreman is a prole, as is anyone drinking a beer in a redneck bar. And anyone that is crass enough to say that there isn’t enough money to buy a yacht is certainly not upper class.
EJsGirl if you moved away from CA you might fool me and a few others into thinking you are upper class (I’ll check the book but I think that for the upper class there is only one level. You either have the indispensable criteria or you don’t). However, you would have a hard time convincing my “friend” from Charleston and would not make “the list” in the Hamptons (unless EJs last name is DuPont). 
That’s one of those Southern affectation and appears ridiculous to us upper-middle class/lower wealthy Northeastern types. Are they really in a relevant “upper class” or are they an anachronism - doomed to dilute their wealth through inheritance, estate and property taxes until they are forced to turn their mansions into museums and venues for weding receptions?
In the Northeast, family money seems like more of a curiousity than anything else. Probably because there are so many wealthy people around the New York area who did not come from the “right family” - people who work in banking, entertainment, lawyers, real estate, etc. I wonder if the Donald Trumps or Bill Gates’ of the world care that they are “neuvo-riche”.
Actually, I do meet the criteria, but I still carry around the notion that it is at least partly about money. In any case, I don’t have to fool anybody. We make a ton of money, I was raised with good manners and we are extremely well-travelled.
I only meant that there is a difference between “California money” and “regular money!” That excludes Martha’s Vineyard, Manhattan and a few other places, of course!
Living in DC, $190k/year is definitely not enough to qualify as “rich”, which suggests that, yes, he’s middle-class.
About the only really strong counter-argument is that he almost certainly has the option of making a lot more money from his connections any time he cares to retire from Congress.
“Class” generally infers some sort of boundaries - real or psychological. For example, a college degree is a very real boundary that separates the lower and middle classes. Other than a few exceptions, someone without a college degree would lack the education, job and financial opportunities and social networks that would allow them to enter the middle class.
My theory is that there are two imaginary boundaries that keep people in their class:
The douchebag factor - This is the upper boundary where talking about wealth, affluence or prestige will make you appear a rich pompous “douchebag” to lower classes. For example, a bunch of wealthy socialites from the South talking about catillians and coming out parties would appear as douchebags to my upper-middle class sensibilities. Even if I were to achieve that level of wealth, I would not aspire to that because I would not wish to become a douchebag. My children, however, growing up in that environment, would expect it.
The dumbass factor - This is the lower boundary where failing to be able to discuss certain topics will make you appear ignorant or simple. For example, having a rudimentary knowledge of wines.
A slight hijack, but if one of my pledges ever said that, my response would have been to affect whatever that Thurston Howell III accent is called and ask him to join the little regatta we are hosting in the party room shitter.
Upper class people know that the correct term is “nouveau”.
Carry on. 
:rolleyes: New Money always spell-checks.