How are you defining “average” here?
From various sources Googled:
The average American earns a starting salary of $42,000, increasing to about $74,000 over the next 20 years.
They typically have a high school degree with some college.
Their median home size is 1,700 sq ft with 52% of such homes having two or more bathrooms. The median value of these homes was $112,000 with the median year of construction being 1970.
There are typically 2-3 cars in their household with a payment of about $380-460 per car.
They typically own 2+ televesions and at least one computer.
The word “average” is probably kind of loaded here. If you take someone with a billion dollars and compare them with 9 people who have nothing, the “average” person has a hundred million bucks.
That’s what it’s like in America. The richest people are so incredibly more wealthy than “regular” people that it screws the mathematical idea of average right up. What is more revealing is to consider median household income, in which there is nowhere in the entire country anywhere near 120k. The median USA household income is less than half that, at 52k. Two people in a household making 26k each can comfortably say they’re middle class almost anywhere in America. Two people making 60k each are doing better than most people, in literally 100% of the counties in the USA.
My wife and I are upper class, making about 75k combined. We own a home, and two cars, and have enough money to pay for our son’s eventual education bills, and we’re putting money into retirement accounts, and if the car breaks down we can just bring it into a shop and have them fix it. We fret a little about “big” purchases like a new television or the mortgage. That’s what rich people do. I grew up middle class, and now I’m rich by every single standard I can imagine, and every model of median household income in the USA agrees with me.
By “average”, I mean “the majority”. Most people in America will not ever make as much as a schoolteacher does, and schoolteachers are some of the lowest paid college graduate professionals. Most people are cashiers and line cooks and shelf stockers and taxi drivers and security guards and receptionists, if they’re lucky enough to have a job at all.
That’s why they typically use “median”, not “mean”. You have 9 people making $45000 and one making a billion, the median is still $45000.
Do any of your cars cost as much as your combined anual income (i.e. Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Porsche Cayenne SUV, Land Rover Range Rover, BMW X6)?
Do you have a membership in a private country club?
Do you own any businesses or are you an executive in a large business?
Do you have revenue streams other than your salaries?
Is your son going to go to a private preparatory high school and a tier-I ranked private university?
Do you own more than one home?
That’s what I think of when I think of someone just starting to be considered “rich”.
Your household income puts you firmly in “upper middle class” territory (which is still pretty good). Locally, you may indeed be in the top quartile and considered “wealthy” in your community. But IMHO rich is rich wherever you live.
Which I think just furthur goes to highlight class differences. People who are truly wealthy and in the upper classes have enough money to separate themselves from the middle class. They join clubs, live in neighborhoods, go on vacations and their children attend schools the middle classes simply cannot afford.
These discussions are always interesting to me. By Ann Neville’s or one of msmith’s definition I’m working class ( never did finish my assorted college degrees, have a loosely blue-collar job that involves working with my hands ), by lexi’s or another of msmith’s definitions I’m middle class ( lifestyle/upbringing ), by Mosier’s I’m upper class/rich ( top quintile of U.S. household income ), by even sven’s I’m somewhere in that narrow range from lower middle to rich ( but not poor or super rich, which I guess is a relief ).
I’m so very confused :p.
You’re definition of “middle class” is depressing. “Middle class” is what makes this country great. You’re describing working class, virtually poor people (not poverty). While necessary for the economy, they’re not our shared image of what makes this country great.
I agree with Balthisar- your definition of middle class is really describing the working class, and not even the skilled working class who may make more than teachers. Rich people don’t fret about the mortgage or buying a TV. Even the solidly middle-class don’t worry about those things as long as they are generally living within their means.
Again, I’m used to “working class”=“middle class”.
Are we in agreement that median income is a good standard for determining middle class? The US census bureau map of median income by county that I linked in my earlier post shows your idea of middle class is twice the median income.
I have noticed a lot of people define “rich” as “has more money than I do”. To a person making 20k a year with a spouse making 25k, “rich” is a household income of 75k and owning a home. To a household making 75k, “rich” is over 100k annual income. To the 100k households, “rich” is having assets worth at least a million dollars. To people who own a million dollars of assets, “rich” means a person who never had to apply for a job in their lifetime. If we abandon these subjective ideas of who is rich and go by an objective median household income standard, 120k is fantastically rich in comparison.
I am describing the majority of people who live in this country. There are some amazingly poor people who are nowhere near as comfortable as my definition of middle class. There are some people who own their own house and have a job using their degree. Those super-poor and super-rich are the exceptions. If you own a house and make 40k a year, you’re fabulously rich compared to most other Americans, and (like I said before) any accurate model of median household income you can cite will agree with me.
Which of us is reading your link wrong?
I seem to see several areas of the country, specifically around New York, San Francisco, Chicago and LA (among a few other areas) where the median income is listed as 74K to 112K roughly. So, that means that there are areas were 112K is the median household income, which, is pretty near to 120K. If you look at zipcodes, there are quite a few where the median is well over 100K.
So, if we are using median income as the benchmark, which was your desire, why is 120K not middle class in these areas?
It’s a good enough reference point , but I don’t think you are reading the medium income map correctly. I read it more as showing where the concentrations of wealth are. Rich people generally don’t live in the rural light yellow counties. They live in the dark green counties around places like NYC, Boston, DC and California. The map shows where the rich people live, not what is considered rich or middle class for a particular county.
I would say because middle class people can’t afford to live there. It isn’t as if they start paying schoolteachers, policemen and nurses $120,000 just because they move to Westchester, NY.
Mosier’s location is given as Vegas and he said that he and his wife make about $75,000. According to this link, the median household income for Clark County was $56,691. So he’s above the median, but not by all that much.
Personally, I’d consider middle class as including anyone in the second or third quartile (i.e., the middle fifty percent).
Not exactly the high roller’s table but not living in a trailer on the ourskirts of town, either. So, pretty much in the middle.
Agreed, it’s complicated. I’m just using his or her’s data (census) and rule (median income determines middle class) and pointing out by his own standards 120K is actually middle class. That the median household income data does not, in fact, agree with him.
People with higher median incomes live in areas that pay higher medium incomes because those are the areas that can support those industries. The only reason that I have to stick to those cities with high median incomes is that is where my jobs are.
I can make 120K per year in Boston, SF and NYC with my profession. And, I would essentially be living a comparable lifestyle to someone making less than half of that in Wichita (check any online cost of living calculator for a cite).
He and I are equivalent even though our absolute numbers are different; we’re both buying clothes from Old Navy and looking for sales. In fact, because taxes are based on absolute numbers, he’s probably even better off financially than I am. If I could have a teleporter and live in Wichita and work in San Francisco, I’d be set!
The whole thing gets scaled up. It’s like saying middle class is 12K per year because in 1932 that was a lot of money. Context matters.