The argument made in the piece is that there is increased polarization between the haves and the have nots. Successful professionals are haves. I don't know wh

The argument made in the piece is that there is increased polarization between the haves and the have nots. Successful professionals are haves. I don't know what nuances the term "upper class" has historically had in California; perhaps it's not the right word for those earning (as little as) a hundred thousand a year. But the idea that there is now a privileged socioeconomic group which no longer blends, at the low end, into the traditionally larger middle class and lower middle class seems like a clearly testable proposition. In other words, the claim is that the middle class is evaporating and tech professionals are left on the wealthier side of the gap, typically earning "upper class" salaries. In the UK, a huge proportion of the population identifies as working class, somewhat bogusly. Tech workers tend to be part of what is sometimes called the "technical middle class", a new (post-WW2) and slightly wretched group with little cultural or social capital but strong finances. Ramen-eating programmers are in the technical middle class even if their earnings haven't yet matched those of more established professionals. I agree that both "working" and "upper" are anachronistic categories.