OK, so you’re calling “the rich” the top 1%.
Meanwhile, most folks are calling “middle class” up to somewhere around the 75th percentile.
So what are the people in the 76th-99th percentile?
Maybe the upper Class?
I’d sort of assumed that was baked in for the rich- when the vast majority of revenue comes from the middle and upper class, the middle class is where the politicians are going to concentrate, because the middle class represents a LOT more votes than the rich do, and on top of that, the rich have other mechanisms for political power and influence than the middle class does.
At any rate, the poor don’t vote much, and don’t pay much in taxes, so politicians aren’t going to be as sensitive to them as they are the other groups.
I was figuring “rich” was top 10%, because that’s roughly where the upper middle class/rich income division takes place as well. If anything, it’s too inclusive, as the top 10% in income is something like 118k, and the top 5% is 166k. Top 25% is only over like 83k.
Exaggerating much? There are endless millions of people who actually believe themselves to be lower-class (economically). I know dozens, and I don’t know all that many people.
This sort of thing is why so many people think they are “middle class”. Because folks don’t look at it based on who is in the middle percentile of income, but based on what they think is necessary for their standard of living. I do know people who make $50k a year with 2 kids in the Atlanta metro area and they live fine. Yes, they may live in a condo or apartment, but when has that precluded being middle class.
Fine, I don’t mean literally nobody, but about 70% of Americans identify as middle-class. That is an overwhelming majority (and presumably some of the other 30% consider themselves upper-class, not lower-class). From a politician’s point of view, it makes the most sense to talk about helping the middle-class, not the poor, because far more people will interpret that to mean “people like me.”
Nope. I am criticizing him because
-
The money was given to him rather than to those educating our most needy students. Like I said, I understand it being given to workers honestly out of a job due to covid with no jobs in their field open, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t be pissed of that the government told us “We can’t give you money because we are giving it to Doofy over there who refuses to work.” And by the way, under the rules he should not have been eligible for benefits since he did not apply for jobs. So when he filed for his check he must have lied and said he sent out applications. Last time I checked that’s fraud.
-
He could have made more money getting a job, even with the added covid benefits, but he refused to even apply for ANY job then he would berate his wife that she needed to get a second job to pay the bills. And then with her second job, yell at her that they were broke. Oh and he refused to do any chores. And I do mean ANY. After 2 jobs she would have to cook, clean, do laundry, do dishes etc. or they would never get done.
-
In short, he didn’t get fired because of covid (he was unemployed before then) and covid did not affect his failure in getting a job and for him unemployment + benefits < salary from working.
That sucks for me since I lost my job last week, we’ve slipped from being in the top 2% to the top 10%.
Seriously though. I tend to view class not so much as statistical bands, but as more of a socioeconomic structure.
-
Poor people - People who basically have to eek out whatever living they can or are completely dependent on government programs. They generally represent some structural failure in society. Usually some combination of lack of skills, opportunity, etc.
-
Middle Class - Broadly speaking, people who work for a living at sustainable jobs that afford them the ability to live a traditional American lifestyle. Within the middle class, there may be different bands (working class, lower white collar class, upper middle class, small business owners, etc) IMHO, a teacher making $50k a year (or whatever teachers make) and lawyer making $300k a year are both part of the “middle class”. Sure, the lawyer makes a fair amount of money, but it’s still based on his labor and subject to the whims of his law firm’s leadership.
-
Upper Class - Basically the network of wealthy families that are rich enough to influence policy at the local, state or national level. Not the lawyer making $200k but the partners who own his firm. The family that owns the local manufacturing plant. The Jeff Bezoses and Elon Musks of the world.
Maybe I might break out the “upper middle class” as a separate class of lawyers, bankers, accountants, consultants, middle managers and other corporate officiants who facilitate the “upper class”.
That’s as good as anything else.
Even though in the thread, I was trying to tie incomes to percentages, I’ve always thought about it like this:
Poor: People who suffer from significant instability in their employment/income. Jobs are temporary and/or unreliable, and so is income. They’re just trying to scrape by however they can. They don’t have a lot of control over many aspects of their lives- income, hardship, etc… are all rather capricious.
Working class: People whose jobs are more stable, but still not high paying or particularly skilled. They’re a step above scraping by, but not much. The main separator is the stability of the income.
Middle class: People whose jobs are stable, and where they make enough money to have a surplus if they’re living according to their income, or to choose to scrape by and live a more luxuriant lifestyle. The subdivisions in the middle class come in with job autonomy, income and status.
Upper class/rich: People who don’t have to work for someone else, because their income comes from enterprises they own or investments in others’ enterprises. Which lines up pretty well with what you’re saying, but it’s not basically political influence, but rather how they make their money.
There’s some pretty blurry stuff where upper class intersects middle class; it doesn’t make sense to say that my dentist is “upper class” because he owns his own practice, and my doctor isn’t because he works for a large healthcare company, for example. Similarly, a lawyer hanging out his shingle and being a sole practitioner is likely to be less wealthy than an associate at a large prestigious firm, even though the latter doesn’t “own” his own practice.
I’m with you… I think its better to to have five classes.
-
Poor - you are struggling to survive day to day
-
Working class - paycheck to paycheck - above the federal poverty level, but little or no room for luxuries
-
Middle class - a wide number of people who can save a little, but not much, go on vacation, eat out…but struggle to pay for college for their kids, save for retirement.
-
Upper middle class - you aren’t too worried about money, you can save for your retirement and kids educations, and you might even own a second home. But you probably need to keep working unless you are really frugal and willing to live that way (you, I and Dins are all here I think).
-
Rich - you have enough money to influence public policy. You have generational wealth, enough money that your children will also be rich (should you choose). You could live off your wealth quite easily.
So, you are mad at him for getting money rather than those educating our most needy students, but not a word for the ultra rich who are getting tax breaks rather than those educating our most needy students.
That’s exactly what is being talked about, punching down rather than up.
I take it you have not checked recently. Under COVID unemployment, you do not need to apply for jobs to draw benefits. The whole point is to keep people from working and spreading the pandemic if they are not in jobs that are necessary to keep things operating.
Okay, so he’s an asshole. But that has nothing to do with the unemployment benefits that he is drawing. Do you think he’d be less of an asshole if he was not"?
You know why the ultra-wealthy get away with pillaging our country the way that they do? We outnumber them, 100,000 to 1. But, they manage to get us to fight eachother over the scraps that they deign to leave us with, rather than to fight them for the massive wealth that they are hoarding.
I see by the example you have demonstrated here that that is working out quite well for them.
My bold
I mostly agree with your post, I just think that it would be better without this prepositional phrase.
There are quite a number of people who do not work for someone else, as they own a small business, but they still do quite a bit of work, often more than those who do work for someone else. I would not consider them to be upper class. (Though it may be a route to become upper class one day.)
What are your thoughts on upward mobility? Should society be set up to create opportunities for everyone to advance, or should it always be a competition to see who gets to lift themselves out of poverty?
Read my first post in the thread because I mentioned that.
You are correct, my bad.
I should not have said “not a word”, I was imprecise, as you used exactly one word directed towards the wealthy.
So, I will rephrase:
So, you are mad at him for getting money rather than those educating our most needy students, but only a single reference to the ultra rich who are getting tax breaks rather than those educating our most needy students.
My slight inaccuracy in describing your post does not in any way change the overall assessment. You are fighting with the rest of us over scraps, rather than those who make us fight over scraps.
Are you talking about typical state unemployment or are you talking about Federal assistance, where you know money was re-routed from the Federal education budget to a Covid relief budget? Because at the state and federal level unemployment is paid for by unemployment insurance money specifically collected for that purpose. School money is specifically collected for schools. If a fund needs a boost money can be transferred from the General Fund or an emergency fund, and that money was never earmarked for schools. It wasn’t earmarked for anything. Most likely it would have been eyeballed for a future capital improvement or some other sort of “want” but anything that is a “need” would have been covered by the state’s yearly budget and funds would be fully funded. Furthermore, in many states, the pot of money that covers the unemployment fund (state money) doesn’t even cross paths with the bulk of money that funds schools (local money). In short, there are financial rules that keep budget lines wholly separate, for all funds, and keeps “greedy” unemployed people from having any access to funds that go to schools. I agree that teachers need more money but a raise can’t and won’t ever come from the state unemployment insurance fund.
This strikes me as the best approach - most reflective of reality. I think it questionable to lump the working class w/ either the poor or the middle class, or the upper middle class w/ either the middle class or the rich.
I think msith537’s categories a tad narrow. He at least has to separate out the “upper middle class” - folk earning several hundred k/yr, but not “influencing policy.”
msmith537 - how would you classify yourself - either before or after the recent job loss. (Presumably the recent job loss did not reduce all of your wealth, and prohibit you from seeking new employ.)
Yeah, it seems like we are thinking more or less the same thing. I guess when I say “influence policy” it’s really that their wealth is tied to a bit of power beyond simply having a lot of money or assets. It’s that their wealth influences the fortunes of others, either intentionally or not.
I also tend to think of “classes” as society layers with real economic, social, and psychological barriers that resists people from rising (or lowering) from one class to another (at least not without having some rare talent or ability).
Let me put it this way. Tom Brady is worth $250 million. His wife Gisele Bündchen is worth twice that. Their grandkids could be dumb, uncoordinated and ugly as fuck (although they probably won’t be) and short of cutting them off entirely, it would be difficult for me to imagine a scenario where they wouldn’t stay in the upper class, regardless of what they decide to do for a living (including nothing).
I think using such extremes are of limited utility. How about folk w/ a net worth of $5 mill. Or $1mill. Or considerable income but also overleveraged. It would be easier for them to drop following illness, loss of job, divorce, etc.
Same at the other end. Really tough for the uneducated, unemployed to escape poverty. But how much easier is it for someone to move from family income of $30k to $50k? Or to enable their kids to aspire to a higher level?
That kind of incremental increase at the lower levels is where I think the greatest of our efforts should be directed at. Not enabling someone making $150k to make $200k.
One curious factor IMO is adjusting expectations. In modern US society, the expectation is that everyone ought to have a relatively comfortable lifestyle, which goes well beyond mere subsistence. People at all income levels expect to live in separate homes rather than apartments, own multiple cars, have up-to-date phones, cable TV, etc. Always is a shock when I look back at photos when I was a kid in the 60s - or of previous generations. Even relatively comfortable people seemed perfectly comfortable w/ a lot less.
My point wasn’t so much in the ownership itself, but the income realized from the ownership stakes. There’s a fundamental difference between someone who makes say… 200k from being employed by someone else, versus someone who owns enough of some business that they have income of $100k without actually having to work for it. The first would still be middle class, and I’d argue that the second is upper-class.
I think upward mobility is something that should be fostered at ALL levels of society- it’s not just about the poor moving out of poverty, which is where all the attention is paid.