3 ms·
Probably because our history and collective cultural values are very different in that regard. And we don't have, like, actual royality. The US has a very "any
by nommm-nommm 11y ago
Probably because our history and collective cultural values are very different in that regard. And we don't have, like, actual royality.
The US has a very "anyone can get rich" kind of cultural ethos so it makes sense our definitions would be very different.
There's also a distinction between upper class and the "frigging filthy rich" (salary in the millions) in the US. Lately they've been called "the 1%."
- StevePerkins 11y agoThe "1%" starts at $193K, which would easily include a household with two 30-year old software developers (or similar professionals). http://whatsmypercent.com/ http://whatsmypercent.com/
- nommm-nommm 11y agoThat is for individual income, not household income - household income the 1% seems to start at $450,000 a year. http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/ http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/
- pbhjpbhj 11y agoWould you say that the "1%" is above "upper class" or an upper-upper-class? Why not just say "he earns $200k" or "he inherited $10M" rather than "he's a part of the upper class"? The former examples seems to provide much more info. [Answer is probably "language isn't logical" but I'd settle for your reason not to use the more informative approach.]