4 ms·

"$120k per year is in the top 10th percentile or thereabouts -- it's at the very edge of what most people would consider "middle class"." If 90% of the people

by gnosis 17y ago

"$120k per year is in the top 10th percentile or thereabouts -- it's at the very edge of what most people would consider "middle class"." If 90% of the people are making less, I don't see how it can be considered "middle class".

plaes 17y ago
That's the new middle class. The ones who thought they are the middle class have to move one step down.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
When did middle class become a synonym for a particular range of pay? The majority in the $120k+ USD pay range may be middle class but I'm sure there are working class folk in there too. Consider sportsmen, Beckham and Rooney are very high paid but they're not members of the traditional middle-class. Membership of various classes is a huge quagmire. If you want to refer to people solely on what they are paid then talk about wages and steer clear of notion of class. Edit: not so stupid now.
- ZachPruckowski 17y ago
  I'd say "Class" can be used to refer to the types of economic problems or challenges facing people, regardless of salary. In this case, if the question is "what's the best way to pay for my daughter going to an Ivy" and not "how on earth can we afford this", they're not middle-class. If mortgage is the topic and "how are we going to ever pay this off" isn't the question, you're not lower-class. I'll certainly agree that the lines are far from clear-cut, but I think it's best defined in a problem-oriented manner. The middle class gets these tax breaks because they can't otherwise afford to send their kids to good schools or own houses, while the upper-class can. They're facing different problems, and so the solutions are tailored differently for them. This causes confusion when you have income-to-SoL disparities in the country ($60k goes further in Kansas than in NYC), so people at different income levels can be facing the same problems.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    Thanks, your last para clears up the need for a classification, here we'd probably say middle-income as middle-class is not necessarily related to earnings. I guess as class and income in the UK are not coterminous this leads to confusion. For example I earn well below the poverty line in the UK but would be described as middle class due to my education and parentage. Beckham, for example, would probably come in as working class - son of a kitchen fitter and hairdresser (according to Wikipedia) low academic achievement, low IQ, no titled lineage.
    - ZachPruckowski 17y ago
      Here in America, I'd find it hard to classify Beckham as anything other than upper-class (upper-income, if you prefer). He's got enough truckloads of money (and his former-pop-star wife is also likely well-off) that he doesn't deal with middle-class or lower-class issues like affording his mortgage payments or saving for retirement or paying for college educations for his kids. I suspect it's a cultural difference. Here in America, people don't really care much where your parents came from or how you did in school, they measure success and class by what you have. We haven't really discriminated on "old-money"/"new-money" lines in decades at least, and we've never had much in the way of titled lineages. We don't have the centuries of cultural history of class immobility that Europeans have (I don't mean that judgmentally, I'm just saying we don't have that history in the back of our minds).
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        This was just linked on Reddit an amusing look at British attitudes to class: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/sathnam_sanghera/article6992855.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/sathnam_.... I chatted to a younger friend about it and he couldn't believe I'd be so gauche as to classify people based on their background, parenting and education but felt class was and should only be about your income.
- ajross 17y ago
  In the US, "middle class" has always been a measure of income only. I'm sorry if that was confusing. And David Beckham is very much not a member of the middle class, indeed. He's as upper crust as they come by US measures

by gnosis 17y ago

plaes 17y ago

That's the new middle class. The ones who thought they are the middle class have to move one step down.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

When did middle class become a synonym for a particular range of pay? The majority in the $120k+ USD pay range may be middle class but I'm sure there are working class folk in there too. Consider sportsmen, Beckham and Rooney are very high paid but they're not members of the traditional middle-class. Membership of various classes is a huge quagmire. If you want to refer to people solely on what they are paid then talk about wages and steer clear of notion of class. Edit: not so stupid now.

ZachPruckowski 17y ago
I'd say "Class" can be used to refer to the types of economic problems or challenges facing people, regardless of salary. In this case, if the question is "what's the best way to pay for my daughter going to an Ivy" and not "how on earth can we afford this", they're not middle-class. If mortgage is the topic and "how are we going to ever pay this off" isn't the question, you're not lower-class. I'll certainly agree that the lines are far from clear-cut, but I think it's best defined in a problem-oriented manner. The middle class gets these tax breaks because they can't otherwise afford to send their kids to good schools or own houses, while the upper-class can. They're facing different problems, and so the solutions are tailored differently for them. This causes confusion when you have income-to-SoL disparities in the country ($60k goes further in Kansas than in NYC), so people at different income levels can be facing the same problems.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Thanks, your last para clears up the need for a classification, here we'd probably say middle-income as middle-class is not necessarily related to earnings. I guess as class and income in the UK are not coterminous this leads to confusion. For example I earn well below the poverty line in the UK but would be described as middle class due to my education and parentage. Beckham, for example, would probably come in as working class - son of a kitchen fitter and hairdresser (according to Wikipedia) low academic achievement, low IQ, no titled lineage.
  - ZachPruckowski 17y ago
    Here in America, I'd find it hard to classify Beckham as anything other than upper-class (upper-income, if you prefer). He's got enough truckloads of money (and his former-pop-star wife is also likely well-off) that he doesn't deal with middle-class or lower-class issues like affording his mortgage payments or saving for retirement or paying for college educations for his kids. I suspect it's a cultural difference. Here in America, people don't really care much where your parents came from or how you did in school, they measure success and class by what you have. We haven't really discriminated on "old-money"/"new-money" lines in decades at least, and we've never had much in the way of titled lineages. We don't have the centuries of cultural history of class immobility that Europeans have (I don't mean that judgmentally, I'm just saying we don't have that history in the back of our minds).
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      This was just linked on Reddit an amusing look at British attitudes to class: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/sathnam_sanghera/article6992855.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/sathnam_.... I chatted to a younger friend about it and he couldn't believe I'd be so gauche as to classify people based on their background, parenting and education but felt class was and should only be about your income.
ajross 17y ago
In the US, "middle class" has always been a measure of income only. I'm sorry if that was confusing. And David Beckham is very much not a member of the middle class, indeed. He's as upper crust as they come by US measures