4 ms·

I read it as someone lamenting that they have it so easy - nice chair, free snacks, reading code all day - while the author's loved ones are really struggling.

I read it as someone lamenting that they have it so easy - nice chair, free snacks, reading code all day - while the author's loved ones are really struggling. And at the same time, the author isn't really rich by the standards of SV - but is rich by the standards of wherever they came from.

kethinov 11y ago
Which says a lot about our political discourse. "Rich by the standards of where" the author came from is arguably just middle class, but the author's family probably doesn't see themselves as poor and would balk at characterizing the author as only middle class. Meanwhile, the author can't even afford a house where s/he lives which calls into my question my characterization of that salary as even qualifying as a middle class salary. We are being increasingly divided into the poor and the rich so much so that those lucky few that are barely hanging on to middle class earnings are now also being characterized as rich, despite some signs pointing to those earnings not even really qualifying as middle class.
- dpark 11y ago
  > the author's family probably doesn't see themselves as poor I suspect a single mother making minimum wage would most definitely recognize that she's poor. > and would balk at characterizing the author as only middle class. This is probably true. Middle class is so inconsistently defined, though, that it's hard to have a meaningful conversation about what constitutes middle class. > Meanwhile, the author can't even afford a house where s/he lives which calls into my question my characterization of that salary as even qualifying as a middle class salary. Home ownership is a terrible way to categorize middle class, mostly because as salaries rise, so do expectations of what constitutes an acceptable home. Someone making six figures in the bay area absolutely can own a home. They just can't buy the one they "feel" they should be able to afford. I see a number of homes and condos on sale in Mountain View for <500K, and a whole bunch in Sunnyvale and San Jose in that range. I'm sure if I looked across the bay I'd find a ton. When your salary is double the median household income, you're at least middle class and realistically probably upper middle class. The fact that your salary won't buy you a 1.5 million dollar home in the heart of Palo Alto is kind of irrelevant. Moving from Palo Alto to Fremont does not change your social class, even if it does make you hate the commute. edit: Median family income in San Francisco in 2010 was $71,745. Six figure individual salary is most definitely middle or upper middle class, even in the bay. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-income-beats-state-U-S-census-shows-2309174.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-income-beats-...
  - kethinov 11y ago
    For what it's worth, I've met an alarming number of people making minimum wage or close to it who see themselves as middle class and see those making only modestly more money as rich. From what I've observed, it seems to be based on what feels normative to their social groups. If most of the people you know make minimum wage or close to it, it feels normal, and therefore you're strongly motivated to believe that's what middle class is. As for $71k median income in SF, I would not personally define that as middle class. To me, middle class is the capability to own at least a modest home and have significant ability to save for retirement. You can't do that on $71k in SF. As such, I would characterize the majority of SF residents as being less than middle class.
    - pc86 11y ago
      Are we just making up definitions for "middle class" now? Just because everyone disagrees on what income constitutes middle class does not mean you get to ascribe whatever you want to it and redefine the phrase itself. Home ownership is a signal but is not itself indicative of middle class. As dpark pointed out there are many homes available for under $500K in the SV region. That is certainly doable on a six-figure salary. And ability to save for retirement is merely a signal too - it has never been used as any kind of barometer for what is middle class. If we're talking about middle class as it relates to income - which is what people mean the vast majority of the time they use the phrase - then $71k is middle class, full stop. If you exclude the bottom 20% and the top 20% of incomes (the widest generally accepted income range for middle class) you get $47-140k. And this is household income, not personal income. San Francisco is the outlier in terms of salary, and if you try to project that onto the US as a whole, you end up with statements like "As for $71k I would not personally define that as middle class."
      - kethinov 11y ago
        There are two ways to look at the middle class: 1. The actual statistical average or median whatever that number happens to be is the middle class, full stop. 2. The middle class is the ideal standard of living one should expect for people who are neither rich nor poor. I happen to subscribe to the latter philosophy. The middle class is whatever range of incomes it takes in a given city adjusted for cost of living to own a modest home and save significantly for retirement. SF's median income can't do that. That used to be how we defined the middle class a generation or two ago, back when home ownership and solid retirement plans were more common. Nowadays it's less common to make enough income to support that lifestyle in many cities and people who can afford it are being increasingly referred to as rich.

kethinov 11y ago

Which says a lot about our political discourse. "Rich by the standards of where" the author came from is arguably just middle class, but the author's family probably doesn't see themselves as poor and would balk at characterizing the author as only middle class. Meanwhile, the author can't even afford a house where s/he lives which calls into my question my characterization of that salary as even qualifying as a middle class salary. We are being increasingly divided into the poor and the rich so much so that those lucky few that are barely hanging on to middle class earnings are now also being characterized as rich, despite some signs pointing to those earnings not even really qualifying as middle class.

dpark 11y ago
> the author's family probably doesn't see themselves as poor I suspect a single mother making minimum wage would most definitely recognize that she's poor. > and would balk at characterizing the author as only middle class. This is probably true. Middle class is so inconsistently defined, though, that it's hard to have a meaningful conversation about what constitutes middle class. > Meanwhile, the author can't even afford a house where s/he lives which calls into my question my characterization of that salary as even qualifying as a middle class salary. Home ownership is a terrible way to categorize middle class, mostly because as salaries rise, so do expectations of what constitutes an acceptable home. Someone making six figures in the bay area absolutely can own a home. They just can't buy the one they "feel" they should be able to afford. I see a number of homes and condos on sale in Mountain View for <500K, and a whole bunch in Sunnyvale and San Jose in that range. I'm sure if I looked across the bay I'd find a ton. When your salary is double the median household income, you're at least middle class and realistically probably upper middle class. The fact that your salary won't buy you a 1.5 million dollar home in the heart of Palo Alto is kind of irrelevant. Moving from Palo Alto to Fremont does not change your social class, even if it does make you hate the commute. edit: Median family income in San Francisco in 2010 was $71,745. Six figure individual salary is most definitely middle or upper middle class, even in the bay. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-income-beats-state-U-S-census-shows-2309174.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-income-beats-...
- kethinov 11y ago
  For what it's worth, I've met an alarming number of people making minimum wage or close to it who see themselves as middle class and see those making only modestly more money as rich. From what I've observed, it seems to be based on what feels normative to their social groups. If most of the people you know make minimum wage or close to it, it feels normal, and therefore you're strongly motivated to believe that's what middle class is. As for $71k median income in SF, I would not personally define that as middle class. To me, middle class is the capability to own at least a modest home and have significant ability to save for retirement. You can't do that on $71k in SF. As such, I would characterize the majority of SF residents as being less than middle class.
  - pc86 11y ago
    Are we just making up definitions for "middle class" now? Just because everyone disagrees on what income constitutes middle class does not mean you get to ascribe whatever you want to it and redefine the phrase itself. Home ownership is a signal but is not itself indicative of middle class. As dpark pointed out there are many homes available for under $500K in the SV region. That is certainly doable on a six-figure salary. And ability to save for retirement is merely a signal too - it has never been used as any kind of barometer for what is middle class. If we're talking about middle class as it relates to income - which is what people mean the vast majority of the time they use the phrase - then $71k is middle class, full stop. If you exclude the bottom 20% and the top 20% of incomes (the widest generally accepted income range for middle class) you get $47-140k. And this is household income, not personal income. San Francisco is the outlier in terms of salary, and if you try to project that onto the US as a whole, you end up with statements like "As for $71k I would not personally define that as middle class."
    - kethinov 11y ago
      There are two ways to look at the middle class: 1. The actual statistical average or median whatever that number happens to be is the middle class, full stop. 2. The middle class is the ideal standard of living one should expect for people who are neither rich nor poor. I happen to subscribe to the latter philosophy. The middle class is whatever range of incomes it takes in a given city adjusted for cost of living to own a modest home and save significantly for retirement. SF's median income can't do that. That used to be how we defined the middle class a generation or two ago, back when home ownership and solid retirement plans were more common. Nowadays it's less common to make enough income to support that lifestyle in many cities and people who can afford it are being increasingly referred to as rich.