3 ms·

I find this article misleading. > ... the upper middle class ... controlled 52.1 percent of total income in 2014, up from 29.6 percent in 1979. But had their i

I find this article misleading. > ... the upper middle class ... controlled 52.1 percent of total income in 2014, up from 29.6 percent in 1979. But had their income growth kept pace with their population expansion, they'd only control 48 percent. So their income grew from a population-adjusted 48% to 52.1%? That's relatively minor, I wouldn't even call it thriving. Also, don't the majority of actually rich people earn wealth via means other than income? EDIT: The HN title is "America's upper middle class is growing", the link has the title "America's upper middle class is thriving". I'd agree that it's growing, but thriving is a hard sell given what's highlighted in the article

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
The class is thriving because so many more people are entering the class, not because individual members of the class are doing so much better.
- colomon 10y ago
  Chart which nicely shows this at http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-many-people-are-getting-richer.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/the...
  - pastProlog 10y ago
    According to that chart's definitions, a San Francisco household where there is one child and in which the husband makes $65k, and the wife makes $35k, is upper middle class. This is not upper middle class as traditionally defined.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      Their range for upper middle class of $100k to $350k doesn't make any sense. That's a huge disparity of incomes and, based on the locale, it means an even larger gap in discretionary income. In fact looking at the numbers without looking at the discretionary income makes no sense whatsoever, as that is the main factor of economic mobility in the first place.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        I think that their approach is to define "upper middle class" as "double the median household income". The problem is that they defined the median household income nationally, not locally.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

The class is thriving because so many more people are entering the class, not because individual members of the class are doing so much better.

colomon 10y ago
Chart which nicely shows this at http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-many-people-are-getting-richer.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/the...
- pastProlog 10y ago
  According to that chart's definitions, a San Francisco household where there is one child and in which the husband makes $65k, and the wife makes $35k, is upper middle class. This is not upper middle class as traditionally defined.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    Their range for upper middle class of $100k to $350k doesn't make any sense. That's a huge disparity of incomes and, based on the locale, it means an even larger gap in discretionary income. In fact looking at the numbers without looking at the discretionary income makes no sense whatsoever, as that is the main factor of economic mobility in the first place.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      I think that their approach is to define "upper middle class" as "double the median household income". The problem is that they defined the median household income nationally, not locally.