Actually, I just got a job paying 55,000 a year and once I get a paycheck, I’ll consider myself rich.
The $250k line just seems so ridiculous, especially since up until a few years ago, that’s more than the President of the United States made. When the ruling elite in this country, including the President, Supreme Court and all of Congress fall squarely into the “middle class” category, you can be sure the phrase “middle class” has become meaningless.
That is nearly twice our household income, and I have NO idea what I would do with that much extra money. If I had children that would be different, but even then we would be extremely comfortable, and we live in a nice part of South Florida where things aren’t terribly cheap.
I agree.
One possible counter argument is that, by the same reasoning, everyone in America is rich because they can afford to live in America. However, this isn’t a true counter-argument. The fact is, by world standards, (nearly) everyone in America is rich. But this is clearly a discussion about “middle class” in the context of the typical readership of the SDMB, which is largely American and almost entirely first-world.
In that context, I am pretty solidly middle class. A $250,000 annual household income in America is clearly upper class.
Well using Dangerosa’s 2010 census link (my $90K was from 2004), a household income of $250K puts you in something like the top 1% of households. And $180K puts you in the top 5%.
$250K is middle class (of any type) like a Summa cum Laude is an average student.
I don’t think it is reasonable to define middle class in such a way that it includes 98% or more of all Americans (assuming you put the lower limit at the same point as the upper limit). It kinda defeats the purpose of defining a middle class if we put everyone except the ultra mega rich and the homeless in it.
Well, honestly to me upper middle class means that you have (or could get a mortgage for, even in these tight credit times) a million-dollar house, and can afford to send all your kids to a private college, paying all of their tuition.
It also means that as a family you vacation in Europe or ski resorts, and can take these vacations 1x/year.
It also means that if necessary you have hired help for cleaning or babysitting.
Again, this is just my impression. Also, 100K for a household again seems like a really low cut-off for “rich.” Would most people think that two individuals living together who each make 50K are rich?
What I consider rich (and therefore not upper-middle class) is literally never having to work for a living, and just full time managing your assets. It usually also includes some heavy-duty philanthropy.
Though in America, that’s pretty much what we do. We all define ourselves as middle class. See, I have that $250k+ household income - and we live pretty middle class + some luxuries. I’d consider someone raising kids on $30k a year poor, not middle class. (The poverty line in the U.S. is ridiculously low). Its all relative.
As to what you do with it? We do take some nice vacations and my husband has a nice car. We eat out - and nicely - more often than a lot of people. The kids spend a week at camp - this year my daughter might spend two. But the big thing we do with it is save it. College expenses are looming and we won’t see a dime in aid. Our retirement is coming up. There is no guarantee that tomorrow our jobs won’t move overseas. My neighbors are mechanics and teachers and cubical dwellers - not stock brokers and surgeons.
Don’t know much about San Francisco, but people forget that Manhattan is not all 5th Ave, Times Square, and Greenwich Village. Ever heard of East Harlem? Washington Heights? These are not posh places.
When we’re talking about relatively low figures (like $40,000), that’s middle-class if you’re a single person. If you throw in a kid or two, with no spouse, then you’re talking about working class. But if you throw in a spouse who’s also making $40,000, then it’s back to being middle class (comfortably or uncomfortably, depending on where you live).
If that’s how you self identify yourself then that’s your privilege. I doubt many people would agree with you, but that’s neither here nor there.
I don’t think the President has made less than $250k/year since the 70’s (he currently makes $400k/year). I don’t believe this is a good baseline, as the President, Congress and Senators aren’t exactly in it for the money. It’s not supposed to be their job, but more a call to duty or whatever (I realize the reality is somewhat different).
Also, while it’s true the Prez ‘only’ makes $400k, it’s not like he has to pay for anything while he’s the Prez. He doesn’t have to pay rent, room or board. He doesn’t have to pay for transportation, travel or expenses (clothes and such). He doesn’t even have to pay for his cellular service. He doesn’t have to pay for healthcare. etc. etc. etc.
So that $400k is going to stretch quite a long way for that 4-8 years.
I don’t believe that most people (including the Presidents, SC members or Congressscritters) are in the ‘middle class’. They may believe they come from the middle classes (and a lot of them do), but I think by just about any definition someone who is in power like that isn’t exactly in Kansas anymore.
-XT
The median household income in San Matteo County is $84K (Link and it is $85K in Santa Clara county. In Silicon Valley, which is suburban, $100K is more or less average. (The income for the city of San Jose is $70K, which pulls down the county as a whole.) I do agree that $250K is way above middle class, even here.
Plus, lots of people don 't choose to live in big, expensive cities, they have to.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that, but I agree that the “well, you have to adjust for location/cost of living” argument is bogus.
If you adjust for the “cost of living” you also have to adjust for the “benefit of living”. If you want to know what that means, ask some of the folks who live in the high cost of living areas why they live there? Why don’t they move to a cheaper place?
You’ll hear lots of great reasons, could be weather, culture, food, shopping, sports teams, etc. etc.
I believe many of the folks who choose to live in such areas are quite wealthy, they just choose to spend a great part of their wealth on their living location. They are paying for all of those benefits that the cheap areas of the country just don’t offer.
Funnily enough, ALL people have a very good sense of humour.
Even the most miserable, humourless git going believes this of themselves.
And many of them are quite poor, and choose to live their anyway - either because its the only place they’ve ever known, or for the benefits. Any number of young people choose to move to the expensive cities of San Francisco, New York or Seattle for the “benefits” of living in those places - without high paying jobs. Those cities are not only populated by the wealthy - but by struggling actors (New York, LA), and gay young people from the Midwest going for the mecca of being able to fit in (San Francisco). After all, high cost of living places have folks working at McDonalds just like Des Moines.
Poor people choose to liv ein expensive urban areas for one of two main reasons: They have a greater chance their of getting out of poverty; or they have never known anything else. Then there are the ones who don’t choose it at all, they are so poor as to be unable to leave.
As has been mentioned, both Manhattan and San Francisco have poor neighborhoods. Harlem and Washington Heights for the former; Hunters Point for the latter.
That isn’t true. People also choose to move to San Francisco or Seattle because its cool - because there are vital counter cultures thriving in those cities. They move to New York or L.A. to get into the acting industry (and you can say that is a “greater chance to get out of poverty” - but there are better places and better industries if that is your goal. They move to Hawaii because they want to surf or Boulder because they want to ski.
When you are twenty two years old, your ability to make decisions on where to live are often not driving by cost of living concerns, but more by your perception of a place as being a good fit for you and appealing to your hobbies more than your profession. Then you often get stuck where you move - unable to really afford to move somewhere else, unwilling to move “home” and face your friends.
I moved to the Bay Area when I was 22 because I was accepted as a grad student to Stanford. I simply never left the area after that.
When politicians use the term “middle class” they are referring to the people who vote, who work for a living, and who consider themselves ordinary working individuals. They want the broadest and most inclusive definition possible and they want the citizenry to define the term, since most of us consider the upper class to be the next guy up, even if we are taking home six figures.
There is no strict definition, but I personally think of the “middle class” as:
The class of citizenry dependent upon their jobs to meet their monthly expenses for a lifestyle which includes (the option for) a privately-financed dwelling and resources sufficient for a family to be comfortably fed, entertained and educated.
IOW, not the independently wealthy and not the ones dependent upon resources outside themselves.
This is all a very US context, and it differs from nation to nation,
In the UK we have what you might describe as the underclass, mostly on benefits, living hand to mouth on a very short term basis, pretty much too poor to get work - they are in the benefit poverty trap where the work they can obtain is going to leave them worse off than staying on benefits due to the additional costs incurred by working, a such as travel etc, these are often time rich and financially poor.
Working class, they can actualy earn very substnatial incomes, ranges from lifters and shifters to skilled manual labour such as the trades like sparkies, painters, constrution, nurses etc.
Middle classes, usually managerial and proffessional types, mostly with degrees required in order to carry out their work, they are not always well paid, but they have the expectation of progression and a ‘career’ which compensates for earlier working life lower income, they expect to move up - these might be decisionmakers, medical proffessionals, legal types, prison governors, mangers above supervisor, military officers, architects.
The top of their range cannot be defined in terms of money, as some may well be millionaires, but its not just about cash, its also about outlook. These people are the types who push changes, if they don’t like something they will often camaign for change, often they are social organisers.
Upper classes means titles, they may well not be at all rich, they will be educated at fee paying schools, often have a sense of duty to the nation such as preserving family estates, leading from the front and all that sort of bally stuff.You could be a company director with assets in the many many millions, you will still never be upper class, its something you are either born into, or marry into.
One thing to add, advertisers have developed a range of descriptors, and these are used to target products to certain parts of society.
I think it is actually straightforward. Someone is poor if they depend primarily upon government assistance for their income. Middle class is anybody who has to work to maintain their lifestyle. For retired people this would mean someone whose main retirement income is from money they earned while working supplemented by social security, or money from family support when those family members are actively working for that money. For example, my wife and I make about $160,000 a year. Even at that income, we would not be able to retire till around age 60 if we were to not count on social security and other government assistance at retirement. No, we do not spend extravagently, and we live in a $180,000 dollar house.
Rich is anybody who has enough money they can live the rest of their lives comfortably without ever having to work another day or having to depend on any government support (thus an unemployed person who lives off welfare, even though they may be content with their situation, wouldn’t qualify for that definition.) The only caveat is that this clearly doesn’t apply to say, someone with a terminal diagnosis with only one month to live.
Middle Class=me
Lower Class=anyone who makes less than me
Rich Bastards=anyone who makes more than me