Boy, I think the first is pretty damned close to upper class. I live in the Chicago area, raised 3 kids on an income of <$200k, and have always considered ourselves VERY comfortable. Sure, we have little in common w/ the Tom Bradys, but we’ve always lived in comfortable homes in nice burbs, drove reliable cars, put our 3 kids through college, carry zero debt, and have amassed considerable savings. Not sure how many folk earning - say - south of $100k can say the same.
Yeah, thinking about my childhood definitely pounds that home. I grew up in a part of Houston that at the time, was one of the hot middle/upper-middle class parts of town (West Houston/Alief). People just had less- 1/2 cars, smallish homes by today’s standards, no lawn services (teenagers did mowing), one TV per household, cable TV was an extravagance, and so on… Only two friends’ parents had anything approaching the lifestyle of today’s families that are similarly economically situated, and they were considered pretty extravagant, because they had two late-model cars, cable TV, took vacations every year, etc… One was (gasp!) a two professional income family, and the other was supplementing their income with some inheritance cash. Everyone else was much more sedate in terms of spending.
“Keeping up with the Joneses” seems to possibly be worse now; as a kid, IF we got a bike from our parents, it was something like a low-end BMX bike from Western Auto or Toys 'R Us. Most of the time, we had to save up and/or get one at a garage sale or something. Nowadays, I see seven year olds tooling around on f**king Trek 20" bikes. 
And I wonder why? Is it that they’re trying to impress people because they can afford to spend $200+ on a kid bike, versus us plebs who got our kids $35 Huffy bikes on Black Friday? I don’t know. I do know I’m somewhat unusual in that it typically makes me astonished, rather than feel like I need to compete with that.
I’m sure social media is fueling a whole bunch of this- all people see on there is all the awesome stuff people are doing; and since nobody posts anything bad, it looks like everyone’s doing a constant parade of awesome stuff/buying awesome stuff. Nobody sees that they may have had ramen 3 nights a week for six months because they bought those cool clothes or furniture or whatever.
That sounds pretty much straight-up upper middle class to me. Like I was saying, it’s not so much the income level by itself, it’s as much where the income is derived from. Upper class would imply that you’re not at the mercy of an employer for your income- your income is derived from your wealth.
It is kind of blurry; like I was saying making 100k in investment income would technically be upper class, while making 200k from a job would be upper-middle-class. In general though from what I can tell, straight salaries tend to top out in the 250k realm, and for most people above that there’s a huge component of some kind of ownership stake- stock options, partnerships, etc… So a high ranking VP at a mid-size to large company may be upper class by dint of his ownership stakes, even though he has a job.
I think we agree. Just that I see a pretty huge gulf between me - upper middle class - and what we would both consider lower middle class. I think even lower middle class has considerable opportunity for generational mobility - make sure the kids go to school and college.
I think the challenges become increasingly greater as income gets lower, w/ job insecurity, requiring multiple jobs. I think the barriers to break from the lower levels are far greater.
Me, I don’t need any assistance. Pissed me off to get the 1st 2 COVID checks. And I never complain about the taxes I pay, because I value the government services I receive. I could move up to a higher income level if I was more aggressive w/ my career, or if my wife kept working fulltime instead of staying home w/ the kids, but we balanced income w/ the lifestyle we wanted to live.
Kinda pisses me off when folk similarly situated as me bitch about their taxes, when tax breaks are given to folk way wealthier than I, or when folk who are pretty comfortable bitch about assistance offered to folk who are poor by anyone’s standards…
I would characterize myself as part of the “upper middle class”. My wife and I are mid-level corporate executives. Our income is largely subject to the whim of our employer.
To draw parallels with medieval feudal society, I would describe my station (as well as other well paid executives, lawyers, consultants, accountants and service workers) similar to that of a knight or samurai. And I don’t mean in a romantic, chivalrous, code of honor sort of way. What I mean is that my role is basically as a lieutenant or captain in paper-pushing “warrior class” equivalent in the service of some lord or daimyo (vice president or managing partner) who owes their allegiance to the king or shogun (CEO or whoever has controlling interest in whatever company I work for).
It’s not a perfect metaphor. Obviously our society offers a bit more mobility and freedom to change allegiances. But I think it’s apt in that it describes how my success is tied to the power structure of wealth in this country. I only earn a decent living so far as I do a “good job”. But the question is who am I doing this job for and why? Does it benefit society as a whole or is it simply to benefit the interests of the wealthy who own the corporations people like me work for?
So while I would describe myself as part of the “middle class”, it would be a part of the middle class that solely exists to serve the interests of the upper classes. As opposed to IMHO the true middle class of people like teachers, firemen, truck drivers, shopkeepers, dentists, carpenters, and people whose jobs actually have a more local and immediate impact on their community.
As to why “helping the middle class” matters, IMHO it’s because they represent the vast bulk of regular work a day people who keep society running. Not that there isn’t a role for large corporations with the resources and means to invent wonderous things and distributed them globally.
I just don’t believe that the only way one should be able to eke out a decent living is to spend years learning some esoteric set of skills to build computer algorithms, run financial reports, find legal loopholes, or broker shady deals that only benefit a relatively few wealthy people.
Thanks for the explanation. I think the main difference betw you and I is that you place far more emphasis on the “middle” portion rather than the “upper.”
Doubt this is a situation of right vs wrong - just different perceptions.
Here’s another take. If the 2 of you are working at pretty well-paying jobs, one of you could quit, and you could still live a pretty comfortable life just about anywhere other than Manhattan, DC, LA, and a limited number of other ultra-high COLA areas.
And even if you are living in the priciest areas, given level the 2 of you earning, I’d suspect you could live many other places at a similar or higher standard of living - possibly even on 1 salary. So any $ pressure you experience is largely reflects your personal preferences. A minimum wage earner or someone earning $5k likely does not enjoy such flexibility.
Using your analogy - I think knights and samurai were pretty privileged groups - quite distinguished from the hoi polloi. I don’t really see why gov’t policy should aim at directly helping you. What sort of form would such help take?
So by helping the middle class, you really mean preventing them from becoming the lower class? Trying to avoid a reality with only lower class people, as well as a few super rich.
I am also wondering if people think having a lower class is unavoidable, or if it should be a goal of having everyone living a middle class lifestyle or better.
For this I am describing the middle class as modest house and car, being able to save up for vacations, and getting your kids through college.
That is a good working list but I do think there is a level between 4 & 5.
Upper Class is maybe the top 10% minus the tippy top 1%. They have lots of money and could retire. They have the expensive house/city apartment and the expensive house at the beach, lake or ski slope. They have full time help like a maid (not a once a week cleaner) and/or other regular staff. They have expensive cars and plenty of luxuries. Country Clubbers.
Rich is the upper 1% by your definition. These are the ones that are the movers and shakers.
Middle Class/Upper Middle Class is also often decided by life choices. If you are a saver/investor early, you can often elevate yourself into the upper-middle by the time you’re 60 without ever having earned like the typical upper class. On the other hand, I know of big earners that spend spend spend and never put much away and if their career does derail, they’re basically set back to your definition of middle class.
I guess I also know some middle class people that spent their way to being working class. But it is very hard for working class or the poor to save their way up.
Political parties generally try to appeal to the greatest number of voters. “Middle class” sounds better than helping the rich. In Canada, most folks think of themselves as middle class anyway. The Canadian Liberals seem very fond of the phrase “the middle class and those who aspire to join them”. But many medical students I know said they were from middle class families, possibly defining this in individual terms.
I suspect some percentage of folk who are not competitive in society will always exist. The same way there will never be 100% full employment. But I think one goal of a society should be to make that number as small as possible. I do not know the proper statistical/math term, but I think a very important measure of any society is the standard of living available to the least fortunate. Would probably require 2 categories - 1 for the unemployable impaired, and another for the lowest level of working poor.
Of course, policy does not solely address one “class” at a time, but in general terms, once as many folk as possible are being adequately housed, fed, educated, given health care, then let’s see how to help the folk the next rung up. Get them a modest house and car, vacations, etc. It would be a while before we get to the folk who drive a perfectly serviceable Ford but would prefer a new (or second) BMW and a vacation home…
I would tend to agree. Which is why I think that when discussing actual benefits, it’s probably more worthwhile to talk in terms of actual numbers than abstract concepts like “middle class”. For someone like me, losing my job is frustrating and maybe damages my ego somewhat. But we would have a long way to go before being homeless.
But I think the reason people focus on helping the middle class is it’s usually presented in the context of getting people necessary skills and education they will need to stay relevant and productive. When we talk of helping the “poor”, we are usually talking about providing some level of minimal sustenance for people who are unable to be productive for some reason that can’t be addressed with “more training”. Like mental health issues or they live someplace that lacks resources or infrastructure.
I do think that we, as a society, need to realize that we are going to have people working legitimate jobs that don’t pay very well and it’s not realistic to train them all to be computer programmers and lawyers.
That’s kind of my point. Do people like me really need policies helping us? I mean unless I went broke or something.
Broadly speaking, I would tend to benefit from policies that support whatever company or industry I serve. Whether those are good for the general public or just those companies and their shareholders is another matter entirely.
Probably not. But people in your class tend to be the most politically active. The most likely to vote or to donate to a campaign.
Our class {upper middle) also tends to be most strident about things like zoning, NIMBY projects, board of ed shit, basically anything to do with keeping our little enclaves as…little enclaves.
And of those who DO consider themselves part of “the poor” many still identify as “middle class” … in waiting.
For the vast majority “poor” is “less wealthy than I am” and “rich” is “wealthier than I am” …
The couple with an income of $300K plus has peers than make $500K plus, who drive fancier cars and go on more frequent trips … to them THOSE are the “wealthy” ones.
And it is with some basis! The middle 50% may look at the top 10% as wealthy but relatively the top 1% is a whole lot more concentration of wealth. 99.0% to 99.9% is very aware that the top 0.1% have a whole lot more concentration of wealth than they do. Dramatically so.
Perception is contingent on who one is comparing oneself to.
The “middle class” is pretty broad; there’s a huge income difference, as well as job freedom difference. On the lower end, it’s probably most likely skilled trades and/or clerical type occupations, and while those folks have security and a small amount of surplus cash, they’re also probably not having much of a surplus, and are likely more affected by economic vagaries than people on the other end of the middle class.
So I’d say that on the lower end, they’re only slightly less deserving of programs that would assist the working class, but on the upper end, there’s not much need. Maybe stuff like student loans that are kind of class-neutral, but nothing specific to help upper-middle class people make more money/be more comfortable is necessary.
That’s something I was going to point out- the difference between the 1% and the 0.1% is a lot larger than between the 1% and 2%.
2018 Annual Wages
Group Wages
Top 0.1% of Earners $2,808,104
Top 1% of Earners $737,697
Top 5% of Earners $309,348
Top 10% of Earners $158,002
As you can see, it more or less doubles between 10% and 5%, and again at 5% to 1%, but then it’s 3x higher between 1% and 0.1%.
And the top 15% is around $100k, top 25% is only $67k, and top 50% is believe it or not, somewhere around 35k, which is surprisingly close to the middle-class threshold.
So while there are a lot of people who are poor, there are a lot who aren’t, and a lot of those aren’t too far off from it, and policies to benefit them aren’t a bad idea.
Even more so looking at wealth.
Household wealth
Top 0.1% $27.80M
Top 1% $6.47M
Top 5% $2.17M
Top 10% $1.28M
Not actually too surprising that the top 10, even top 5%, identify more with those who have less than they do with that top 0.1%. They feel screwed by them too.
And the top 0.01%?
This is why I think wealth is a much better indicator of financial stability than income. I’d say we’re at the low end of upper middle class, income - wise, but we have very little net worth, and it ain’t for lack of trying. We live in a manufactured home, which we own. We’ve poured thousands and thousands into retirement and paying down student loans and while the retirement will eventually pay off, I don’t think the student loan payments will. Having a baby wiped out our savings and our total family medical costs, with insurance, are about $20,000 per year. We’re basically one short-term disability away from living paycheck to paycheck.
There is an excellent Atlantic article about this from a few years back, that will not allow me to link to it (you can find it with Stop Pretending You’re Not Rich) but one of the main points of that article is that the upper middle class often feel, keenly, that their financial stability is precarious, and are thus threatened by political changes to the status quo.
We really need to stop focusing on income.
(This has racial implications as well. Black people appear to be making gains income - wise but check out the wealth disparity. It’s striking.)