The problem with all these discussions on economics involving a middle class comes back to how everyones definition of "middle class" is different. Especially w

The problem with all these discussions on economics involving a middle class comes back to how everyones definition of "middle class" is different. Especially when you are rich and/or poor - you might have millions in the bank but you are paid a salary so you are still "working / middle class" despite being in the top .1% of wealth. You are living paycheck to paycheck with no safety net and any illness could leave you homeless but you have the latest smartphone so you are "middle class". Its completely anecdotal - we don't have an international standard definition of "middle class" but if you have an upper class of wealth owners who live off capital, and a lower class that has no wealth and lives off labor, middle is the hybridization of the two. To be truly middle class you would need half your income coming from investments and half from labor, which means at todays rates you would need about a million in investments to make the median salary and have the same income coming from your savings. A lot of people do fall in that category, but I'm of the opinion nowadays that the dilution of the term is an actively intentional weapon of the globalist elite - when people admit they are poor, working class, or lower class they recognize they have much to gain and little to lose opposing the status quo of society. If you can convince everyone, including the rich (who can shamelessly exploit markets so long as they don't see themselves as the elite ownership class) and the poor (who would rather not recognize their own exploitation) to call themselves middle class you can abuse the poor as much as you want, they can never collectively act against you if you are all claiming to be in the same economic class. A middle class does exist, but its not nearly as large as anyone - rich or poor - likes to think it is.