Don’t you have to take into account what type of lifestyle someone lives? If someone makes $1 million per year, but his expenses to maintain his various cars, boats, and vacation homes are $1.1 million per year, is he rich?
Yes. Could be irresponsible too, but yes, rich.
Which would be another reason, you go to college in an expensive COL area and choose to stay. I know a number of folks who ended up in New York going to Columbia, or Boston because they went to MIT or Harvard.
(The assumption being if you go to Sanford or Harvard, you probably are going to be able to afford to stay. Although that does depend on what your degree was in).
I’d disagree. He’s destitute, he just hasn’t found out yet. Maybe he’ll get lucky and avoid bankruptcy.
This is the only place it gets tricky. I tend to think of it in terms of whata modest, comfortable lifestyle without any government assistance would be to make middle class. For example a 30 year old expecting to reach age 80 would, accounting for likely inflation, still neeed about $50,000 a year. That doesn’t account for medical expenses either. So that person would still need at least 5 million just to consider themselves barely wealthy, without taking into account unexpected expenses. Closer to 7 or 8 million would probably be about right. So say for a thirty year old, even for someone earning 1 million a year, after taxes, they would still have to work for at least 8 years or so to be able to have a modestly comfortable lifestyle upon retiring at age 38.
Admittedly the flaw with my definition is that one grows “richer” by virtue of their age rather than the amount of money they have. But this is also in line with my personal thinking that the most important thing in considering someone to be rich is that they not have to work rather than the number in their banik account.
This is probably a pretty accurate description of class structure in the US as well, except that our upper class is a little harder to identify due to the lack of titles. My sense is that when our politicians use the phrase “middle class”, they’re referring to what you call the working class, and when they use the phrase “upper middle class”, they’re referring to what you call the middle class. The precise distinction between the two is vague, but it’s reasonable to draw the line based on whether a given persons earns an hourly wage or a salary.
I like class as being a social construct (similar to the aforementioned British class system) and economics being separated. And I define it differently.
Destitute - you don’t have anything
Not getting by - every month, you are a little more in the hole, but you haven’t fallen off the edge yet.
Making ends meet - every month you are more or less even, but you don’t save
Getting ahead - you are paying your bills and able to set a little aside
Financially stable - you’ve managed to set enough aside that you could weather some common bad event - getting laid off for a few months, not being able to work due to illness.
Financially independent - you no longer need to work
These are independent of your lifestyle. If you are comfortable living in a one room cabin in Montana, it might take a lot less to be independent than if your lifestyle means a 10,000 square foot house. You can make $1M a year, but if you spend $1.1M you are “not getting by.” Someone living in a cabin in Montana might have $3M worth of assets in land, but since they live simply, most people looking at them from the outside wouldn’t consider them “rich” - on the other hand, some people living in expensive mansions, driving expensive cars, and taking expensive vacations have a negative net worth - it just hasn’t caught up with them yet.
The goal for Americans should be to reach some sort of independence (you can decide if that includes social security) before retirement. That is going to mean balancing income with lifestyle. Which IS a lot easier to do if your income is more significant, but that doesn’t mean people with significant income do it.
But the person who’s earning $1M and spending $1.1M has a lot more options for dialing it back than the person who’s earning $15,000 and spending $16,500. It’s not reasonable to use the same term to describe both of those.
The person spending 1.1 million probably has significant assets that they bought with that 1.1 million, so their net worth may well still be positive.
There are certain fields which more or less require you to live in one area. When AT&T split up the second time, I moved to Silicon Valley because that was the only place with lots of jobs. Pretty much everyone of my colleagues who didn’t leave either eventually had to or are now struggling. I know some people who worked for IBM in Vermont - when they got laid off, they basically retired, because they had to move to get a job. When I got fed up with my first job here, I could get another which did nothing to my family’s lifestyle and only reduced my commute. So the benefits of an area or the cost of living might be very secondary considerations.
Part of the problem in defining middle class may be that individuals don’t understand where they are on the scale (percentile-wise). They live and work around similar folks and just assume they are somewhere in the middle of their neighbors and friends, and therefore define themselves as middle class.
Personally, my vague estimation of our household’s percentile rank turned out to be way off base once I began reading various threads (and links) in this forum. I suspect that most people really don’t know whether they’re in the top two-thirds, or top quarter, or top 1 percent.
Ok, everyone, go see how rich you are:
http://www.globalrichlist.com
I still believe that your socioeconomic class is based more on availability of opportunities and a shared cultural experience than simply straight numbers. And you can’t simply look at linear quartiles either. A six figure income may put you in the top 10% of US households. But there is a huge difference in standard of living between someone making $100,000, $400,000, $one million and beyond.
This, a thousand times over. Here’s a counterexample to the claim that class is based on income:
Consider two individuals, Alice and Bob, both aged 23 and both taking in about $50,000 per year. Alice is an accountant, just as her father was. She works at a medium-sized firm, and receives all of her income from salary. Bob, on the other hand, is a graduate student whose stipend is about $25,000 per year. The rest of his income is given to him by his parents, who give each of their children as much as they can write off.
Would anyone seriously argue that Alice and Bob are in the same class because they have the same income?
How are you are defining “same income” – I think by IRS standards, their AGI and net income after taxes would be very different…
Income is the amount of money that you take in. I’ve never seen anyone in any one of these threads use a more specific definition.
Another example: Suzie is a hair dresser and married to Sam, who installs cable. Jenny is a book keeper for a local non-profit and married to Joe, an adjunct instructor at a community college. Suzie and Sam probably have a higher household income than Jenny and Joe, but Jenny and Joe would likely be classified as “middle class” and Suzie and Sam as “working class”.
I think that “class” is being overloaded here. What this example really shows is the difference between white collar and blue collar, not middle class and some other class. In the prime of Detroit factory workers were making enough money to allow them to buy nice suburban houses. I’d say they were both blue collar and solidly middle class.
I think 30 or 40 years ago there was a perception that white collar was somehow above blue collar in standard of living, but I suspect there are many cases of plumbers making a lot more than those working in call centers.
One reason why I think income is a major focus is because it’s ordered. You can rank two given incomes easily and uncontroversially. You just look at them and say that the bigger one is higher than the other. Since people use words implying a tiered structure (“lower”, “middle”, “upper”), it’s easy to focus on the aspect that has a clear hierarchy. When non-economic social aspects are brought in, it’s unclear to me how we are to order them. In your example, do we say that Bob is in a higher class than Alice? Or vice versa? What are the criteria for deciding?
Don’t get me wrong - I have no problem saying that Alice and Bob are in different social classes. I also think I’d prefer to be in Bob’s shoes than in Alice’s. (But that’s because it’s implied that Bob’s parents are loaded - and thus we’re right back to numbers, even if indirectly.)
As an example, is the lead singer in a rock band a member of a class higher, lower, or equal to the class of the House Minority Whip? How does one even begin to assign rank in that comparison?
We’ve been generally speaking of earned income, which relates in the U.S. to AGI which gets taxed in a certain way.
You’ve now brought up a very different type of income, totally un-earned, and treated totally differently by the U.S. tax code.