IMO, based on finances alone, middle class for an adult means having (being able to buy) a couple of luxury items (Ipod, laptop/desktop, a car worth more than $10,000), living in a neighborhood that is mixed income and moderately safe (e.g., not living in either the worst or best neighborhoods of a town), and being able to take care of an unexpected $500 expense without relying on a credit card, asking for a loan, or foresaking another expense.
By social standards, which I consider to be more important, middle class is defined based on how a person was/is raised. If at least one parent is college educated (degreed or not) and does not do physical labor for a living, the family has enough books to fill a bookcase, the children are encouraged to speak at least a close approximation of standard American English, and the family takes a traveling vacation at least once a year (or kids are sent somewhere away from home, to camp or to relatives), then I would consider that family middle class. That means the grown children could go on to be migrant farmers, but I would still consider them to be middle-class since they would have the cultural currency (book-learning, diction, childhood experiences) of middle-class people.
So, are absolute numbers are meaningless, correct? I mean, I just put 250000 per year into a cost of living calculator in Manhattan. So, two people making over 100000 per year. Not too shabby. Many people would consider them wealthy. But, the equivalent in Wichita, KS, is about 100,000 per year total or both people making 50K per year. Even though this is apparently equivalent, no one would consider that wealthy. You can take almost a 60% pay cut to move from New York to Wichita.
Which is why it always rubs me the wrong way to pay the AMT when that couple in Wichita who is just as “wealthy” isn’t. The absolute numbers are meaningless.
Poor - you are dependent on the help of others to survive. You can be working poor, you can be on welfare, you can live with your parents and have them pay your bills, you can supplement your food from the food shelf. But without help, you can’t keep yourself and your dependents fed, clothed and sheltered.
Wealthy - you don’t need to work for a living - you have enough assets to generate enough income to meet your needs - that might be a small house in Montana in the country, or a Park Avenue condo, but you don’t need to work in order to feed, clothe and shelter your family. (And provide things like insurance). Even at a very low standard of living, it takes more wealth than most people realize to generate income to support yourself off your assets - health insurance is expensive as you age. Property taxes. And your assets must generate enough income to cover inflation. Being able to afford to take a year off doesn’t qualify you as wealthy. And I’d guess most people with incomes large enough to generate the type of savings that produces the sort of assets necessary want a high standard of living that a little tiny house sparsely heated and a diet of rice and beans.
I would agree with this, and my post way up there somewhere makes much this same claim. However, I think the three classes are a bit basic from a social class perspective (i.e. you can be working class and clearly not poor, but this doesn’t make you middle class)
and I don’t think that economic self-sufficiency is the threshhold for upper class status. Upper class is truly the economic class where social status and whatnot begins to play a huge factor in whether you are a member of that class or not.
Upper class, as opposed to any other class, incorporates concepts of political/social power which is somewhat divorced (though there is correlation) from just having a large bank account.
Stupid twits on “the real housewives of orange county”? not upper class
heirs and heiresses who have inherited real wealth and have access to elite social circles? upper class
Poor/destitute - Basically you are forced to rely on others / do whatever you have to in order to survive
Working class - You work with your hands. Typically you perform work that is dirty, dangerous or otherwise unpleasent. Factory work, law enforcement, food service, etc.
Middle class - You work with your mind. Checking spreadsheets, calling clients - office work, sales, etc. You are still at the mercy of your employer.
Upper middle class - People work for you. Your job is managing others or just your own career. You are a well-paid professional and your employer is simply your means to your own professional ends. Doctors, lawyers, highly paid management types.
Upper class - Your assets work for you. You own businesses or other wealth producing assets.
[/quote]
The Real Housewives of any of the counties are white trash who married into money.
I did see one of them eating at Koi (sushi restaurant) in Midtown. It made me think less of Koi.
The UAW factory workers would have an issue with this. They’re definitely middle class economically. Probably in the upper 10% of wage earners, when factoring in over time. Sure, many of them have a working class mentality and social class, but they’re not there financially.
I think you’ve run up against a cultural premise that defines owning a detached single family house as an essential component of middle class-hood. In a city like NY where even members of the upper class may be renters, albeit renters who can afford mindboggling rents, I think you are justified in taking house ownership out of the equation. For me, personally, house ownership is not the be-all and end-all of a perfect successful life, so I would probably say the same thing as you, except I’m in L.A. Although I’m currently a victim of the recession, my earning history is probably similar to yours–good, high 2-figure salary, could never buy a house in the city limits, but would never consider a cheaper house in the boondocks, because I actually prefer high density neighborhoods in which rental apartments dominate.
Social classes are an entirely differently thing - as social classes you aren’t classed as poor or wealthy have nothing to do with wealth. You can be upper class and poor, lower class and rich. Social classes are a set of habits and customs - do you watch Nascar (do you admit it to your friends?)…if the answer to both of those is yes, you aren’t upper class even if you are Paul Newman. (Though Paul Newman was a very classy gentleman by almost all accounts).
I’ve met my share of “wealthy” “white trash” - and my set of poor this generation ‘old money’ (at least until Dad passes on - but they are 40 and Dad is 70 - so they really will not get much of a chance to be wealthy) who went to the ‘right’ schools off trust funds that only paid for education - and now work low paying jobs for non-profits and live very middle class lifestyles (but organize polo tournaments and charity balls).
ETA: The OP doesn’t appear to be talking about social classes, but income classes.
I agree, though I’d put it this way: you are likely to be “upper middle class” if your particular skill-set is sufficiently in demand that employers compete for you rather than you compete for employers. You still have to peddle your own work, though.
Upper class - more likely, your worth is not in what you do but in what you own.
Also, what I see is an increasingly yawning gap between lower and upper middle class, with the middle ground between 'em drying up. To my mind we in North America at least are becomming a society of “haves” and “have-nots”.
We do it too. It isn’t that hard, really. The secret here is the same as the secret everywhere else: location, location, location. We have a great apartment in a perfectly safe but less desirable location so we pay $1450 a month in rent instead of the $3300 most news articles claim people pay for rent in NYC. We don’t own a car so we pay $89 per month to get where we need to go. We cook at home instead of eating out every day (eating out every day is surprisingly common amongst New Yorkers) and instead only eat out about 3 times a month.
We live very well in Manhattan for about $85,000 (we each earn about $42,000-$43,000.) We aren’t swimming in money or anything and if one of us lost our job we would be in for a world of hurt for a while, but we have enough to cover all of our needs, most of our wants, and save for the future in one of the most expensive cities in the country.
I’ve always understood middle class as meaning people who own their home, have a car, pay their bills without fear of running out of money, and have a little bit of disposable income left over after that. Family history, type of job, and location don’t factor into the definition for me. I’m middle class in small-town Virginia where I earn $36,000 per year and own a house worth about $140,000. In the inner suburbs closest to Washington D. C., some middle class people have houses worth $500,000.
Socially, I’m very middle-class… if anything, I tend toward the lower end, considering my family’s 2-3 generations out of very working-class origins, and I’m only in the 2nd to have gone to college.
Financially, by myself, I’m probably very middle-class for around here, especially if my wife and I were only factored in. With her in the mix, we’re probably upper-middle. We’re in no danger of being bankrupt for anything other than healthcare costs, and can afford to travel somewhat modestly.
I tend to look at the working/middle class financial divide as whether or not they typically live paycheck-to-paycheck, and any unforeseen expenses would cause serious debt. Middle class families typically have some slack there- they make more than they spend, generally. As in, a flat tire doesn’t have to go on the credit card, or require a payday loan.
85k is a lot more than 60K, though, but still pretty impressive. I left Manhattan a few years ago (2100 per month for my 1 bedroom in a not desireable neighborhood. Not bad, just not desireable). Do you have kids? If not, that would have to change the equation pretty greatly.
My original contention was that a family can not live in Manhattan (and certainly couldn’t be middle class) with an income of 60K. You’re taking home about 40 and paying at least 20K per year in rent alone (unless you’re in a rent controlled place, but that’s like assuming that you have a rich, childless uncle with terminal cancer who is ready to give you his fortune.) I’m okay with being wrong on this, but I can’t imagine how!
Myself, still live in the ‘starter house’, drive an old, decent looking paid-up car, bills paid on time, lawn mowed on a semi-regular basis, shop at Sears and Penneys with forays into Target and Walmart, lawn furniture on the deck, barbeque grill in the back yard, oh, and a hanging basket of purple petunias at the front door. Pumpkin(s) sitting on the front step in the fall. (Had decorative flags out front for a while.) We are cautiously comfortable and I’m glad we never suffered the mad scrabble to upgrade to a McMansion and matching expensive cars we couldn’t really afford…This is what says middle class to me. It’s a lifestyle or state of mind rather than how much money one needs to sustain that lifestyle. Husband has office job, I really don’t know exactly how much he makes, though.
I think of it according to where you go for family vacations:
Poor: Vacation? What is that?
Lower Middle Class: Camping at the state park, Driving trips to visit relatives
Middle Class: Domestic trips- Disneyland, Las Vegas, Hawaii, maybe a Cruise
Upper Middle Class: Lightweight international- Paris, Mexican resorts, maybe China
Rich: Adventurous International- Kenya, Bali, Peru
Super Rich: Stay with your friends and relatives who live and work around the world
there is no separate “social class” versus “income class”. class is class - whatever that may exactly mean. it’s an amalgam of assets and social stratification, how exactly constituted is up for debate.