12 ms·

Are you from outside the US? I've never heard this attitude in the US, but have heard it multiple times from people from other countries (often the UK). Here i

by ceras 10y ago

Are you from outside the US? I've never heard this attitude in the US, but have heard it multiple times from people from other countries (often the UK). Here in the US I've heard families earning from $30k to $200k, working jobs from manual labor to white collar, call themselves "middle class."

chimeracoder 10y ago
> Here in the US I've heard families earning from $30k to $200k, working jobs from manual labor to white collar, call themselves "middle class." $200K is definitely considered middle class in the US, especially by the left. For example, both Clinton and Sanders use $250K as their upper limit[0]. As for manual labor vs. white collar - it depends on what context you're talking about, but in terms of sheer economic purchasing power, that doesn't really matter that much. (Incidentally, a lot of white-collar office jobs pay a lot less than many blue-collar positions). There's definitely a class and status aspect to the term 'middle class', but that's much harder to quantify (and is also only loosely correlated with income - hence the existence of the term nouveau riche. As an aside, $200K isn't necessarily as much as people think it is, which is (one of the reasons) why people like Clinton and Sanders consider $250K to be middle class[1]. A lot of people who "make" $200K in gross income are often working jobs which require them to cover a lot of large expenses (such as vehicles/equipment) out-of-pocket, or are running their own businesses[2]. While they might seem rich if you just look at the $200K figure, that doesn't mean they're really rich in any meaningful sense of the word - even if they're frugal, they could still be living quite hand-to-mouth on that amount. [0] http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/18/news/economy/clinton-sanders-middle-class/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/18/news/economy/clinton-sanders... [1] There are more cynical, political reasons for doing it as well, but there is a factual justification for it as well. [2] I'm not talking about startups, but genuine 'small businesses', for which they're often the sole proprietor or one of very few partners.
- refurb 10y ago
  $200K is definitely considered middle class in the US, especially by the Democrats. I think that has more to do with politics than economics. $250K is an income limit that is politically expedient. To call yourself middle class when you're making 5x the media household income is kinda silly. And yes, I know many live in HCOL areas. A lot of people who "make" $200K in gross income are often working jobs which require them to cover a lot of large expenses (such as vehicles/equipment) out-of-pocket, or are running their own businesses[2]. This doesn't make any sense to me. Your gross income is your gross income. Nobody reports what their business revenue is as gross income. You need to take out expenses first.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >To call yourself middle class when you're making 5x the media household income is kinda silly. And yes, I know many live in HCOL areas. Cost of living matters a whole lot, though. You'd have a higher standard of living in Cleveland at $100k than in San Francisco at $250k.
    - jacobolus 10y ago
      > You'd have a higher standard of living in Cleveland at $100k than in San Francisco at $250k. That’s a hyperbolic exaggeration. If you pay for a 2 bedroom apartment, transportation, food (even if the SF person only shops at Whole Foods or wherever), utilities, comparable health insurance, etc., then the SF person on a $250k salary is going to have considerably more left over to spend on whatever else they want.
      - ktRolster 10y ago
        If you pay for a 2 bedroom apartment, transportation, food The price of a two bedroom apartment in SF will get you a 3,000 sq ft house with a quarter acre of land elsewhere.
        douche 10y ago
        The numbers I've seen here and there for a SF 2-BR would cover the mortgage on a 160 acre farm, plus the financing on new equipment to run it.
        jacobolus 10y ago
        If you have 2–4 people, a 3000 sq. ft. house is in my opinion worse quality of life than a 1500 sq. ft. flat, because you have double the rooms to clean, for little tangible advantage. If you feel you need the space for a bowling alley / film screening theater / wood shop / large library / child’s playground / art gallery / industrial kitchen / space to host an 80-person party / rooms for 10 guests / ..., in the city you can find all those within walking or easy transit ride distance.
Houshalter 10y ago
Here is a good essay which discusses why social class is a distinct concept to economic class: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/30/staying-classy/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/30/staying-classy/ I think it's a very useful distinction. I've seen similar things in demographic statistics. Where e.g. parents education was more predictive of their child's outcome than their income. Career choice and success is somewhat noisy and random.
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  The underlying article by Siderea is absolutely fantastic as well. Must-read before any discussions of class!
chrisseaton 10y ago
In the UK you can be a millionaire and be working class, or be destitute and middle class. It's about more than money.
henrikschroder 10y ago
Yes, I'm not from the US, and yes, I'm always astounded by americans who think that your income bracket defines your class. > Here in the US I've heard families earning from $30k to $200k, working jobs from manual labor to white collar, call themselves "middle class." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Where I'm from, the most important marker for middle class is that you value education very highly, and that you don't value physical labour above any kind of work. Obviously, the people in your example at the low end of the pay scale would most likely be lower middle class, and those at the upper would be upper middle class. The major distinctions between those would be how to perform social interactions and the size of their social networks, but they all agree that life's goal is to send your kids through college. (As opposed to being working class which means you do not value education highly, and you value physical labour ("real work!") higher than any other kind of work.)
- WalterSear 10y ago
  The american definition of middle class is "there shows on TV that are about people like me."
  - nwjtkjn 10y ago
    Huh? There is an abundance of shows in America about rich people.
  - henrikschroder 10y ago
    That's obviously false since american TV shows portray people of pretty much every social class.
    - WalterSear 10y ago
      Right. And if they aren't in prison, they are all middle class.
    - ForHackernews 10y ago
      They do? What American TV shows focus on the poor or the working class? Other than Roseanne (which went off the air in 1997) I struggle to think of one.
ScottBurson 10y ago
Economic class is not just a function of income. The definition of middle-class is someone whose economic survival and security are reasonably assured. If you're middle-class, you usually aren't worrying where your next dollar is coming from. You have at least a little discretionary spending money. You have some free time. In a rural area, where the cost of living is very low (and maybe you raise some of your own food), that might be possible on $30k. In the city it's likely to take at least twice that. Conversely, as long as you have to work to maintain your lifestyle, you're middle-class, not upper-class. Even if you're making $600k, if quitting your job is not a realistic option because of the mortgage on your mansion, the payments on your Ferrari, and a couple of failed investments -- you're middle-class. You're way at the upper end of the middle class, but you're still middle-class. Now, certainly, if you're making $600k and you're reasonably careful with your money, you have a golden opportunity to make investments that can, in a relatively short time, put you into the upper class. But you're not there until you have enough passive income to live on indefinitely.
- gizmo 10y ago
  That's a very American perspective. In the UK a Duke or Earl can be close to broke, but nobles and gentry will always be considered upper class. In contrast lottery winners, successful plumbers or grocers and other businessmen will almost never become upper class, even if they are independently wealthy.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    Right. In Europe, it also often has to do with status. For example, you can make €25m and still not be accepted by the "upper class" (i.e. wealthy "old" nobility), because you are seen as not sophisticated enough. On the other hand, decent wealth builders (but not crazy rich) people can still be accepted in the upper class because they share certain values and habits. A lot of old noblemen look down on the capitalists / nouveau riche. At the same time, the realise they need capitalists to help them generate decent yields on their inherited fortunes. It's an interesting world at the top. Some are accepted into the group, and others are not. Source: my mom is friends with several people who carry a title.

by ceras 10y ago

chimeracoder 10y ago

> Here in the US I've heard families earning from $30k to $200k, working jobs from manual labor to white collar, call themselves "middle class." $200K is definitely considered middle class in the US, especially by the left. For example, both Clinton and Sanders use $250K as their upper limit[0]. As for manual labor vs. white collar - it depends on what context you're talking about, but in terms of sheer economic purchasing power, that doesn't really matter that much. (Incidentally, a lot of white-collar office jobs pay a lot less than many blue-collar positions). There's definitely a class and status aspect to the term 'middle class', but that's much harder to quantify (and is also only loosely correlated with income - hence the existence of the term nouveau riche. As an aside, $200K isn't necessarily as much as people think it is, which is (one of the reasons) why people like Clinton and Sanders consider $250K to be middle class[1]. A lot of people who "make" $200K in gross income are often working jobs which require them to cover a lot of large expenses (such as vehicles/equipment) out-of-pocket, or are running their own businesses[2]. While they might seem rich if you just look at the $200K figure, that doesn't mean they're really rich in any meaningful sense of the word - even if they're frugal, they could still be living quite hand-to-mouth on that amount. [0] http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/18/news/economy/clinton-sanders-middle-class/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/18/news/economy/clinton-sanders... [1] There are more cynical, political reasons for doing it as well, but there is a factual justification for it as well. [2] I'm not talking about startups, but genuine 'small businesses', for which they're often the sole proprietor or one of very few partners.

refurb 10y ago
$200K is definitely considered middle class in the US, especially by the Democrats. I think that has more to do with politics than economics. $250K is an income limit that is politically expedient. To call yourself middle class when you're making 5x the media household income is kinda silly. And yes, I know many live in HCOL areas. A lot of people who "make" $200K in gross income are often working jobs which require them to cover a lot of large expenses (such as vehicles/equipment) out-of-pocket, or are running their own businesses[2]. This doesn't make any sense to me. Your gross income is your gross income. Nobody reports what their business revenue is as gross income. You need to take out expenses first.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >To call yourself middle class when you're making 5x the media household income is kinda silly. And yes, I know many live in HCOL areas. Cost of living matters a whole lot, though. You'd have a higher standard of living in Cleveland at $100k than in San Francisco at $250k.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    > You'd have a higher standard of living in Cleveland at $100k than in San Francisco at $250k. That’s a hyperbolic exaggeration. If you pay for a 2 bedroom apartment, transportation, food (even if the SF person only shops at Whole Foods or wherever), utilities, comparable health insurance, etc., then the SF person on a $250k salary is going to have considerably more left over to spend on whatever else they want.
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      If you pay for a 2 bedroom apartment, transportation, food The price of a two bedroom apartment in SF will get you a 3,000 sq ft house with a quarter acre of land elsewhere.
      - douche 10y ago
        The numbers I've seen here and there for a SF 2-BR would cover the mortgage on a 160 acre farm, plus the financing on new equipment to run it.
      - jacobolus 10y ago
        If you have 2–4 people, a 3000 sq. ft. house is in my opinion worse quality of life than a 1500 sq. ft. flat, because you have double the rooms to clean, for little tangible advantage. If you feel you need the space for a bowling alley / film screening theater / wood shop / large library / child’s playground / art gallery / industrial kitchen / space to host an 80-person party / rooms for 10 guests / ..., in the city you can find all those within walking or easy transit ride distance.

Houshalter 10y ago

Here is a good essay which discusses why social class is a distinct concept to economic class: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/30/staying-classy/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/30/staying-classy/ I think it's a very useful distinction. I've seen similar things in demographic statistics. Where e.g. parents education was more predictive of their child's outcome than their income. Career choice and success is somewhat noisy and random.

henrikschroder 10y ago
The underlying article by Siderea is absolutely fantastic as well. Must-read before any discussions of class!

chrisseaton 10y ago

In the UK you can be a millionaire and be working class, or be destitute and middle class. It's about more than money.

henrikschroder 10y ago

Yes, I'm not from the US, and yes, I'm always astounded by americans who think that your income bracket defines your class. > Here in the US I've heard families earning from $30k to $200k, working jobs from manual labor to white collar, call themselves "middle class." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Where I'm from, the most important marker for middle class is that you value education very highly, and that you don't value physical labour above any kind of work. Obviously, the people in your example at the low end of the pay scale would most likely be lower middle class, and those at the upper would be upper middle class. The major distinctions between those would be how to perform social interactions and the size of their social networks, but they all agree that life's goal is to send your kids through college. (As opposed to being working class which means you do not value education highly, and you value physical labour ("real work!") higher than any other kind of work.)

WalterSear 10y ago
The american definition of middle class is "there shows on TV that are about people like me."
- nwjtkjn 10y ago
  Huh? There is an abundance of shows in America about rich people.
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  That's obviously false since american TV shows portray people of pretty much every social class.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    Right. And if they aren't in prison, they are all middle class.
  - ForHackernews 10y ago
    They do? What American TV shows focus on the poor or the working class? Other than Roseanne (which went off the air in 1997) I struggle to think of one.

ScottBurson 10y ago

Economic class is not just a function of income. The definition of middle-class is someone whose economic survival and security are reasonably assured. If you're middle-class, you usually aren't worrying where your next dollar is coming from. You have at least a little discretionary spending money. You have some free time. In a rural area, where the cost of living is very low (and maybe you raise some of your own food), that might be possible on $30k. In the city it's likely to take at least twice that. Conversely, as long as you have to work to maintain your lifestyle, you're middle-class, not upper-class. Even if you're making $600k, if quitting your job is not a realistic option because of the mortgage on your mansion, the payments on your Ferrari, and a couple of failed investments -- you're middle-class. You're way at the upper end of the middle class, but you're still middle-class. Now, certainly, if you're making $600k and you're reasonably careful with your money, you have a golden opportunity to make investments that can, in a relatively short time, put you into the upper class. But you're not there until you have enough passive income to live on indefinitely.

gizmo 10y ago
That's a very American perspective. In the UK a Duke or Earl can be close to broke, but nobles and gentry will always be considered upper class. In contrast lottery winners, successful plumbers or grocers and other businessmen will almost never become upper class, even if they are independently wealthy.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  Right. In Europe, it also often has to do with status. For example, you can make €25m and still not be accepted by the "upper class" (i.e. wealthy "old" nobility), because you are seen as not sophisticated enough. On the other hand, decent wealth builders (but not crazy rich) people can still be accepted in the upper class because they share certain values and habits. A lot of old noblemen look down on the capitalists / nouveau riche. At the same time, the realise they need capitalists to help them generate decent yields on their inherited fortunes. It's an interesting world at the top. Some are accepted into the group, and others are not. Source: my mom is friends with several people who carry a title.