3 ms·

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 modes

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.

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.