5 ms·

Ask YC: Are the terms Lower, Middle, Upper-middle and Upper class too subjective to mean anything?

10 points by falsestprophet 19y ago

Apparently, everyone thinks they are middle class. I suppose this could be true for n-2 people. But, that isn't terribly meaningful. What income levels do you think these terms should reflect? To what degree is it meaningful to adjust for cost of living?

pchristensen 19y ago
The way I think of them are: Lower class - you scrimp on needs like food, safe housing, medical care, education, insurance. In other words, you have to "sell" your personal security to make ends meet Middle class - you scrimp on wants like travel, bigger/newer housing, smaller TV, keep your cell phone for a couple years, buy a 2 year old car instead of brand new, etc. Upper class - harder to pin down because wants are effectively unlimited. I'd say if you won't settle for the "default" choices, you're probably upper class. If you have to live in Atherton instead of Sunnyvale, you're probably upper class. If you drive a Lexus instead of a Toyota, you're probably upper class. If you shop at Whole Foods because the grocery store isn't good enough, you're probably upper class. If you wouldn't consider a top state school like UVigrinia, the UCs, or UMichigan, because you need to go to an Ivy, you're probably upper class. I was going to say something about Mac vs PC, which outside of hackers might be an indication of upper classism, but remembered that for hackers, the best computer for you is a business expense and a productivity investment.
- dcurtis 19y ago
  I would hardly consider someone who drives a Lexus as upper class. Porsche, BMW, Mercedes.
  - pchristensen 19y ago
    I used Lexus vs Toyota b/c they're basically the same car plus some extra plush and a slanted L. It was an example of paying a higher price just to signal wealth. Certainly not as ostentatious as a Maybach or a McLaren.
    - dcurtis 19y ago
      Interesting. I would say Lexus is a signal of higher middle class wealth though, more than upper class. Clearly, this is an opinion.
      - LogicHoleFlaw 19y ago
        I think that choice of vehicle is extremely dependent upon location as well. It's definitely a cultural as well as financial choice. I've lived around the country and each area has its own distribution of cars, independent of the financial status of the residents.
deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
showerst 19y ago
Generally when you want to discuss income breakdowns in scientific terms you use income Quartiles (or quintiles, etc). By defining locality and timeframe (top quintile of americans? californians? residents of 90210? in 1990? 2008?) you can easily scale in a way that people still understand. People have strongly differing concepts of class, whereas (most) everyone knows what the lowest 25% of earners look like in thier community. The concepts are still valid, it's just a matter of narrowing the terms. Edit: If you're discussing income in many countries (esp the US) it may be wise to split off the top 1% or 0.5%, as they tend to make so much that it strongly influences the averages.
dfranke 19y ago
The problem with the lower, middle, upper hierarchy is that it doesn't correspond to anything meaningful about one's lifestyle, or at least hasn't since it still meant serf, merchant, and nobility. How about a more meaningful set of labels? Welfare class: Those unwilling or unable to sustain themselves without government or family (other than spouse) support. Working class: Those dependent on employment to maintain their chosen standard of living. Independent class: Those able to earn their income directly in order to achieve their chosen standard of living. Freelance consultants, entrepreneurs, etc. Investment class: Those who can achieve their chosen standard of living entirely from investment income.
- rms 19y ago
  This works, except both working class and independent class each cover the full income spectrum of the traditional lower, middle, and upper class.
  - dfranke 19y ago
    For the most part that's by design. After further consideration, though, I have to add the caveat that this system only makes sense in first-world economies. It doesn't make much sense to put a subsistence farmer in the second-highest of four classes.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  Could be okay, although 'working' might be a term you should reserve for the super-rich, many of whom get that way working insane hours. Bill Gates lost a girlfriend because of his "7-hour-turnaround" rule: he had to be back in the office within seven hours of leaving, every day. I'm not sure many people in your version of the working class have that issue. Perhaps the "working but not saving class" would be more appropriate.
rms 19y ago
As far as I am concerned, there is no middle class anymore. It left when America stopped manufacturing. There are three official classes now, with as many subdivisions as you want. Working class -- People who don't have an education and have to work shitty jobs. Professional class -- People with college degrees, especially professional degrees demanded by the market. Ruling class -- the elite, media owning class. I prefer to call these classes lower, upper, and uber-capitalist, respectively.
- Hexstream 19y ago
  What about a guy with no diploma that shoots his company to the stars and makes billions? Steve Jobs doesn't have a diploma, IIRC. And he's not as much an exception as you'd think (on that particular aspect).
  - rms 19y ago
    Steve Jobs is an uber-capitalist, of course. He is the largest shareholder in the world's third largest media company. Even without the media ownership, a billion dollars pegs you as a solid uber-capitalist.
  - anaphoric 19y ago
    I think that would land him in the elite class described above. By definition only few can be so well rewarded.
  - Hexstream 19y ago
    It was a theoretical question to say I don't think the above categories are appropriate...
nextmoveone 19y ago
I denote classes (in South Florida) by household income as follows: Lower <80k Middle > 80k but < 225k Upper > 225k
- carpal 19y ago
  <80k household income as lower class? That's insane. Maybe in the upscale districts of the biggest cities, but everywhere else 60k/year is solidly middle class. In the rural areas of Florida, 60k/year might even be considered Upper Class.
  - nextmoveone 19y ago
    I am also thinking of household as having at least 4 people, if not 5 to support and 3 family members income. So mommy makes 25-35k daddy makes 25-35k and bobby/sally(the kid) makes 5-8k. That's just my personal definition of lower income seeing as how places even in bad parts of downtown are about 800-1000 per month for 2 bedroom. Add 300 more for 1 more bedroom.
aristus 19y ago
In the original sense of the term, nearly all of us are in the middle class: town-dwelling people who can choose where they work. The alternatives were the ruling class and the peasant class they held in thrall.
Xichekolas 19y ago
Lower Class = bottom 20% of incomes Middle Class = 20%ile-80%ile of incomes Upper Class = top 20% of incomes Rich = top 5% of incomes All the terms are inherently relative to each other. Of course the actual (rather meaningless) values of those incomes varies with location and time. Lower class Americans transported to India or even back to 1930s America start to look very much like Upper class.
- Xichekolas 19y ago
  Just to follow up, from this document: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf in Table 1 on Page 3 Lower Class = Under $23,700/yr Middle Class = $23,700 to $99,502/yr Upper Class = Above $99,502/yr This is a national average in America. Obviously places like the bay area and the Mississippi delta are going to vary a lot. For another look at it, check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Quintiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_... (Note that my guess at rich being the top 5% means $157,176/yr and up according to that wiki article.)
anaphoric 19y ago
Having lived most of my life in the US with its large gulf between the rich and the poor and in Sweden, which really is much more egalitarian, I have to say I prefer a society with more equality. I was making a lot of money before I left the States in 2000, but I always found it to be an "embarrassment of riches" in front of friends and acquaintances who were not doing as well, but who were arguably contributing more to society (I am thinking of a Nurse friend and a elementary teacher friend of mine). Large salary differences are a drag. At one level I feel a bit sorry for the grossly overpaid executive. If they have a moral sense they must tie their minds up in knots to justify their pay to themselves. The good thing is that most of them, once the 'win' and prove what they set out to prove, do become philanthropic to one degree or another. The problem is that sometimes that philanthropy does not extend beyond their immediate families. :-)
rsheridan6 19y ago
Class isn't just about income. It's also a cultural thing, reflected in your grammar, clothes, mannerisms, etc. A plumber whose vocabulary includes "ain't" and makes $40,000 is not of the same social class as an assistant professor with the same salary.
pg 19y ago
I think there are two separate hierarchies, one based on wealth (desperate, nervous, coasting) and one on education (reads nothing, reads Time, reads The Economist). Hundreds of years ago the two hierarchies were tied together because only the rich could afford education. In the 20th century they drifted apart. The interesting question is whether they will converge again, pushed from the opposite direction-- i.e. not because wealth causes education, but because education causes wealth.
- ivankirigin 19y ago
  No, they won't converge. It will get easier to live comfortably. With less effort required to live, fewer people will seek out education.
  - __ 19y ago
    Do more people forgo education today than did in the past?
    - pchristensen 19y ago
      More people go to college now than ever. It's getting easier to live comfortably if you're educated. If you're not, it's getting harder and harder.
      - ivankirigin 19y ago
        Educated != went to college, I'm afraid. Economics professors would probably be mortified by the number of economics grads that don't bother reading the economist. Getting harder and harder if you didn't go to college? Have you ever been to a best buy? It's getting easier and easier for someone of meager standing to have an entertainment center that only the rich could afford two decades ago.
    - ivankirigin 19y ago
      College today is a lot about entertain and fun. Huge student centers, little emphasis on the "boring hard parts". It is inevitable that standards decrease as more people go to college to meet the ridiculous college-education requirement of button-pushing jobs.

pchristensen 19y ago

The way I think of them are: Lower class - you scrimp on needs like food, safe housing, medical care, education, insurance. In other words, you have to "sell" your personal security to make ends meet Middle class - you scrimp on wants like travel, bigger/newer housing, smaller TV, keep your cell phone for a couple years, buy a 2 year old car instead of brand new, etc. Upper class - harder to pin down because wants are effectively unlimited. I'd say if you won't settle for the "default" choices, you're probably upper class. If you have to live in Atherton instead of Sunnyvale, you're probably upper class. If you drive a Lexus instead of a Toyota, you're probably upper class. If you shop at Whole Foods because the grocery store isn't good enough, you're probably upper class. If you wouldn't consider a top state school like UVigrinia, the UCs, or UMichigan, because you need to go to an Ivy, you're probably upper class. I was going to say something about Mac vs PC, which outside of hackers might be an indication of upper classism, but remembered that for hackers, the best computer for you is a business expense and a productivity investment.

dcurtis 19y ago
I would hardly consider someone who drives a Lexus as upper class. Porsche, BMW, Mercedes.
- pchristensen 19y ago
  I used Lexus vs Toyota b/c they're basically the same car plus some extra plush and a slanted L. It was an example of paying a higher price just to signal wealth. Certainly not as ostentatious as a Maybach or a McLaren.
  - dcurtis 19y ago
    Interesting. I would say Lexus is a signal of higher middle class wealth though, more than upper class. Clearly, this is an opinion.
    - LogicHoleFlaw 19y ago
      I think that choice of vehicle is extremely dependent upon location as well. It's definitely a cultural as well as financial choice. I've lived around the country and each area has its own distribution of cars, independent of the financial status of the residents.

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]

showerst 19y ago

Generally when you want to discuss income breakdowns in scientific terms you use income Quartiles (or quintiles, etc). By defining locality and timeframe (top quintile of americans? californians? residents of 90210? in 1990? 2008?) you can easily scale in a way that people still understand. People have strongly differing concepts of class, whereas (most) everyone knows what the lowest 25% of earners look like in thier community. The concepts are still valid, it's just a matter of narrowing the terms. Edit: If you're discussing income in many countries (esp the US) it may be wise to split off the top 1% or 0.5%, as they tend to make so much that it strongly influences the averages.

dfranke 19y ago

The problem with the lower, middle, upper hierarchy is that it doesn't correspond to anything meaningful about one's lifestyle, or at least hasn't since it still meant serf, merchant, and nobility. How about a more meaningful set of labels? Welfare class: Those unwilling or unable to sustain themselves without government or family (other than spouse) support. Working class: Those dependent on employment to maintain their chosen standard of living. Independent class: Those able to earn their income directly in order to achieve their chosen standard of living. Freelance consultants, entrepreneurs, etc. Investment class: Those who can achieve their chosen standard of living entirely from investment income.

rms 19y ago
This works, except both working class and independent class each cover the full income spectrum of the traditional lower, middle, and upper class.
- dfranke 19y ago
  For the most part that's by design. After further consideration, though, I have to add the caveat that this system only makes sense in first-world economies. It doesn't make much sense to put a subsistence farmer in the second-highest of four classes.
byrneseyeview 19y ago
Could be okay, although 'working' might be a term you should reserve for the super-rich, many of whom get that way working insane hours. Bill Gates lost a girlfriend because of his "7-hour-turnaround" rule: he had to be back in the office within seven hours of leaving, every day. I'm not sure many people in your version of the working class have that issue. Perhaps the "working but not saving class" would be more appropriate.

rms 19y ago

As far as I am concerned, there is no middle class anymore. It left when America stopped manufacturing. There are three official classes now, with as many subdivisions as you want. Working class -- People who don't have an education and have to work shitty jobs. Professional class -- People with college degrees, especially professional degrees demanded by the market. Ruling class -- the elite, media owning class. I prefer to call these classes lower, upper, and uber-capitalist, respectively.

Hexstream 19y ago
What about a guy with no diploma that shoots his company to the stars and makes billions? Steve Jobs doesn't have a diploma, IIRC. And he's not as much an exception as you'd think (on that particular aspect).
- rms 19y ago
  Steve Jobs is an uber-capitalist, of course. He is the largest shareholder in the world's third largest media company. Even without the media ownership, a billion dollars pegs you as a solid uber-capitalist.
- anaphoric 19y ago
  I think that would land him in the elite class described above. By definition only few can be so well rewarded.
- Hexstream 19y ago
  It was a theoretical question to say I don't think the above categories are appropriate...

nextmoveone 19y ago

I denote classes (in South Florida) by household income as follows: Lower <80k Middle > 80k but < 225k Upper > 225k

carpal 19y ago
<80k household income as lower class? That's insane. Maybe in the upscale districts of the biggest cities, but everywhere else 60k/year is solidly middle class. In the rural areas of Florida, 60k/year might even be considered Upper Class.
- nextmoveone 19y ago
  I am also thinking of household as having at least 4 people, if not 5 to support and 3 family members income. So mommy makes 25-35k daddy makes 25-35k and bobby/sally(the kid) makes 5-8k. That's just my personal definition of lower income seeing as how places even in bad parts of downtown are about 800-1000 per month for 2 bedroom. Add 300 more for 1 more bedroom.

aristus 19y ago

In the original sense of the term, nearly all of us are in the middle class: town-dwelling people who can choose where they work. The alternatives were the ruling class and the peasant class they held in thrall.

Xichekolas 19y ago

Lower Class = bottom 20% of incomes Middle Class = 20%ile-80%ile of incomes Upper Class = top 20% of incomes Rich = top 5% of incomes All the terms are inherently relative to each other. Of course the actual (rather meaningless) values of those incomes varies with location and time. Lower class Americans transported to India or even back to 1930s America start to look very much like Upper class.

Xichekolas 19y ago
Just to follow up, from this document: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf in Table 1 on Page 3 Lower Class = Under $23,700/yr Middle Class = $23,700 to $99,502/yr Upper Class = Above $99,502/yr This is a national average in America. Obviously places like the bay area and the Mississippi delta are going to vary a lot. For another look at it, check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Quintiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_... (Note that my guess at rich being the top 5% means $157,176/yr and up according to that wiki article.)

anaphoric 19y ago

Having lived most of my life in the US with its large gulf between the rich and the poor and in Sweden, which really is much more egalitarian, I have to say I prefer a society with more equality. I was making a lot of money before I left the States in 2000, but I always found it to be an "embarrassment of riches" in front of friends and acquaintances who were not doing as well, but who were arguably contributing more to society (I am thinking of a Nurse friend and a elementary teacher friend of mine). Large salary differences are a drag. At one level I feel a bit sorry for the grossly overpaid executive. If they have a moral sense they must tie their minds up in knots to justify their pay to themselves. The good thing is that most of them, once the 'win' and prove what they set out to prove, do become philanthropic to one degree or another. The problem is that sometimes that philanthropy does not extend beyond their immediate families. :-)

rsheridan6 19y ago

Class isn't just about income. It's also a cultural thing, reflected in your grammar, clothes, mannerisms, etc. A plumber whose vocabulary includes "ain't" and makes $40,000 is not of the same social class as an assistant professor with the same salary.

pg 19y ago

I think there are two separate hierarchies, one based on wealth (desperate, nervous, coasting) and one on education (reads nothing, reads Time, reads The Economist). Hundreds of years ago the two hierarchies were tied together because only the rich could afford education. In the 20th century they drifted apart. The interesting question is whether they will converge again, pushed from the opposite direction-- i.e. not because wealth causes education, but because education causes wealth.

ivankirigin 19y ago
No, they won't converge. It will get easier to live comfortably. With less effort required to live, fewer people will seek out education.
- __ 19y ago
  Do more people forgo education today than did in the past?
  - pchristensen 19y ago
    More people go to college now than ever. It's getting easier to live comfortably if you're educated. If you're not, it's getting harder and harder.
    - ivankirigin 19y ago
      Educated != went to college, I'm afraid. Economics professors would probably be mortified by the number of economics grads that don't bother reading the economist. Getting harder and harder if you didn't go to college? Have you ever been to a best buy? It's getting easier and easier for someone of meager standing to have an entertainment center that only the rich could afford two decades ago.
  - ivankirigin 19y ago
    College today is a lot about entertain and fun. Huge student centers, little emphasis on the "boring hard parts". It is inevitable that standards decrease as more people go to college to meet the ridiculous college-education requirement of button-pushing jobs.